DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI v. BAY FORGE LTD, Kancheepuram

ITA 1809/CHNY/2019 | 2010-11
Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2021 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 180921714 RSA 2019
Assessee PAN AAACF0453D
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 1809/CHNY/2019
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
Appellant DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI
Respondent BAY FORGE LTD, Kancheepuram
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 08-11-2021
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Assessment Year 2010-11
Appeal Filed On 10-06-2019
Judgment Text
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1809/Chny/2019 िनधारण वष /Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle-1(2) Chennai. v. M/s.Bay-Forge Ltd. Palayanoor PO Vedanthangal Road Pukkath Village Mudurantakam Taluk Kancheepuram Tamil Nadu-603 308. [PAN: AAACF 0453 D] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (थ/Respondent) Department by : Mr.N.Sanjay Gandhi JCIT Assessee by : None सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 09.11.2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER M.L.MEENA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 Chennai in ITA No.183/CIT(A)-1/2016-17 dated 29.03.2019 for the AY 2010-11. 2. At the time of hearing the Ld. DR for the Department submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s appeal based on the fresh evidences produced during the course of appellate proceedings without granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee under Rule 46A of the Income आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’ !ायपीठ चे$ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI ी धुु आर.एल. रे ी ाियक सद एवं डॉ एम.एल. मीना लेखा सद' के सम BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU R.L. REDDY JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. M.L.MEENA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1809/Chny/2019 :: 2 :: tax Rules for verification of such additional evidences by way of calling for a remand report in rebuttal. He further submitted that the issue is covered under the Cluase-10(c) of the Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.07.2018. He has prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is set aside and that of the AO restored. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. 4. Having heard the Ld.DR and perusing the material on record and the impugned order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) we find that before the Cit(A) the assessee while objecting to the disallowance made by the AO had relied upon the fresh evidences to defend no forex fluctuation and the transaction comprised both capital and Revenue items. In our view the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have called for Remand Report under rule 46 from the AO in rebuttal to the fresh evidences admitted by him in the adjudication of the matter and granting relief to the assessee. 4. The provisions of Rule 46A of the IT Rules 1962 is read as under: 46A. (1) The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] [or as the case may be the Commissioner (Appeals)] any evidence whether oral or documentary other than the evidence produced by him during the course of proceedings before the [Assessing Officer] except in the following circumstances namely :— (a) where the [Assessing Officer] has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted ; or (b) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence which he was called upon to produce by the [Assessing Officer] ; or (c) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing before the [Assessing Officer] any evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal ; or ITA No.1809/Chny/2019 :: 3 :: (d) where the [Assessing Officer] has made the order appealed against without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence relevant to any ground of appeal. (2) No evidence shall be admitted under sub-rule (1) unless the [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] [or as the case may be the Commissioner (Appeals)] records in writing the reasons for its admission. (3) The [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] [or as the case may be the Commissioner (Appeals)] shall not take into account any evidence produced under sub-rule (1) unless the [Assessing Officer] has been allowed a reasonable opportunity— (a) to examine the evidence or document or to cross-examine the witness produced by the appellant or (b) to produce any evidence or document or any witness in rebuttal of the additional evidence produced by the appellant. (4) Nothing contained in this rule shall affect the power of the [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] [or as the case may be the Commissioner (Appeals)] to direct the production of any document or the examination of any witness to enable him to dispose of the appeal or for any other substantial cause including the enhancement of the assessment or penalty (whether on his own motion or on the request of the [Assessing Officer]) under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 251 or the imposition of penalty under section 271.] 5. From the above it is evident that firstly The Ld. CIT(A) can not admit an evidence under sub-rule (1) unless he records in writing the reasons for its admission and secondly the CIT(A) shall not take into account any such evidence produced under sub-rule (1) unless the Assessing Officer has been allowed a reasonable opportunity. In view of the fact we considered it deem fit to restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh after calling for Remand Report from the AO on the evidences filed by the assessee as discussed in the impugned order. The assessee shall be at liberty to file its rebuttal on the Remand Report so furnished by the AO during the course of appellate proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to examine all the grounds of appeal of the assessee afresh in view of the Remand Report furnished by the AO on the documentary evidences ITA No.1809/Chny/2019 :: 4 :: filed regarding the Accounting Standard followed and the rational of the losses suffered by the assessee on account of exchange difference as claimed against forex loss. 6. In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 09 th day of November 2021 in Chennai. Sd/- (धुु आर.एल. रे ी) (DUVVURU R.L. REDDY) !ाियक सद'/JUDICIAL MEMBER Sd/- (एम.एल.मीना) ( M.L.MEENA) लेखा सद'/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे$ई/Chennai िदनांक/Dated: 09 th November 2021. TLN आदेश की ितिलिप अ(ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ/Appellant 4. आयकर आयु)/CIT 2. थ/Respondent 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR 3. आयकर आयु) (अपील)/CIT(A) 6. गाड फाईल/GF