TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 951X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidered the application by the assessee for admitting those evidences and also there is no discussion whether such materials/evidences could be admitted as evidence at the appellate stage or not. Taking the proviso of Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, the Hon'ble High Court was satisfied that substantial question of law was involved in this matter and hence, the matter was admitted. As both the parties agreed that in conformity with the procedure of law laid down in the Act for admission of additional evidences, the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer and the assessee may be directed to produce all the necessary documents/evidences before him in order to represent his case on merits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T(A) has not gone into the merits of the case. 4. The appellant prays to be allowed to add vary and amend the grounds of appeal at or before the date of hearing. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company in the business of Construction and development of properties. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee claimed cost of land at ₹ 80.00 lakhs. At the time of assessment proceedings furnished a typed letter dated 06-2-1997 address to Mr. Mathew Braganza, Angod, Mapusa, Goa, referring to the special power of attorney dated 29-4-1954 also referring agreement dated 14-7-1993 for sale of property in respect of survey No. 186/6 at Calangute for ₹ 80.00 Lakhs, out of which an amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that no income was recognized during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, work in progress disclosed in the profit and loss account at ₹ 2,88,26,161/- which includes cost of land at ₹ 80 lakhs. Respectfully following the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal (supra.), the cost of land was reduced from the total work in progress and the Assessing Officer was, therefore, directed to re-compute the income. 4. The issue involved in the present appeal relates to the deemed unexplained expenditure under proviso to Section 69C of the Act. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the earlier order has held that the amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Assessing Authority. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that all this casts a doubt upon such evidences. The Ld. Counsel also submitted that application made by the assessee does not satisfy the predicates of Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. The Hon'ble High Court observed that it is secondary question whether production of such additional evidences were to be allowed or not by the Tribunal, but at the very first instance, it was noticed that the Tribunal has not even considered the assessee/appellant's application seeking leave to produce additional evidence at the stage of appeal by it. 7. That on analyzing Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, it was opined by the Hon& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to produce additional evidence at the appellate stage, we, for the aforesaid reasons, set aside the impugned judgment and order by the ITAT and remand the ITA No. 03/PNJ/2011 to the file of ITAT, Panaji for fresh adjudication. We direct that the ITAT considers the appellant's application seeking leave to produce additional document, in accordance with law and on its own merits. All contentions of all parties are specifically kept open. 12. Needless to add, that the ITAT shall afford opportunity of hearing to both the parties and only thereafter, decide the appeal which we have now remanded to it. This appeal is accordingly disposed off in the aforesaid terms. 8. At the time of hearing, both the parties agreed that in conformit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
