ITAT has directed A.O to examine the veracity of the additional documents being submitted by the M/s Pipal Tree venture P.Ltd before the learned CIT appeals.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has instructed the Assessing Officer (AO) to re-examine the authenticity of additional documents provided by M/s Pipal Tree Ventures Pvt. Ltd. to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). This decision arises from an appeal by the Revenue concerning the assessment year 2009-10. The ITAT's order addresses concerns about the admission of fresh evidence and the opportunity given to the AO to investigate these documents.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM

ITA No. 2490/Mum/2017
(Assessment Year: 2009-10)

Dy. CIT, Circle – 13(1)(2),
2nd Floor, Room No. 218,
Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road,
Mumbai-400 020
PAN/GIR No. AAECP 4464 E
(Appellant) 

Vs.

M/s. Pipal Tree Ventures Pvt. Ltd.
108/109, Mehta Industrial Estate,
I.B. Patel Road, Next to Swati
Studio, Goregaon, Mumbai -400 063
(Respondent)

Appellant by : Shri Uodal Raj Singh
Respondent by : Shri Krish Desai

Date of Hearing : 20.10.2020
Date of Pronouncement : 01.01.2021

O R D E R

Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.:

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai (‘ld.CIT(A) for short) dated 30.01.2017 and pertains to the assessment year (A.Y.) 2009-10.

2. The grounds of appeal read as under:

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in admitting fresh evidence in violation of Rule 46A of I.T. Income Tax Act, 1961, 1961.

2. Without prejudice to the admission of fresh evidence, whether the opportunity granted by the ld. CIT(A) to the Assessing Officer as described in para 6.3 of his orderdated 30.01.2017, can be considered sufficient, and if not, whether the order needs to be set aside to meet the substantial cause of justice.

3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,75,00,000/- made u/s. 68 of I. T. Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to discharge primary onus cast upon it u/s. 68 during the course of assessment proceedings and the facts could not be investigated in appellate proceedings.

4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, othersubscribers such as B. Seenaiah & Co. and Kanwaldeep Investment Co. P. Ltd. being found acceptable as genuine by the A.O. has nay relevance to the genuineness of subscription of shares by M/s. KMC Construction Ltd.

5. The appellant prays that the order of the ld. CIT(A) on the grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.

To know more in details find the attachment file