2018 (8) TMI 443 - HC - Income Tax

Admission of additional documents - Held that - Considering the grounds raised and the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the fact that the authorised representative of the appellant has filed an application before the Tribunal, for considering the documents placed, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit and proper case where the matter is to be remanded for fresh consideration before the Tribunal to be taken up along with the application filed by the authorised representative of the appellant

Summary

Issues:
Challenging order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding deduction of loss on premature termination of securitization agreement.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, raising two substantial questions of law. The first issue questioned the Tribunal's finding on the absence of supporting documents for deduction of loss on premature termination of a securitization agreement. The appellant argued that the Tribunal overlooked the paper books filed by them, which contained relevant evidence. The Tribunal noted the absence of evidence before the Assessing Officer and itself. The appellant's counsel highlighted that Chartered Accountants had evidence of filing the paper books acknowledged by the Tribunal. Additionally, an application was filed before the Tribunal to consider the documents submitted. The Court, after considering the grounds raised and the circumstances, decided to remand the matter for fresh consideration by the Tribunal, along with the application filed.

The second substantial question of law, which pertained to the merits of the case, was not addressed by the Court. It was emphasized that the matter needed to be heard afresh, taking into account the documents filed by the appellant. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the case to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing along with the application. It was clarified that the Court did not make any observations on the case's merits for the Tribunal to consider all issues. The Revenue's Standing Counsel highlighted that the assessee might not automatically rely on the documents in the paper books, as it was at the Tribunal's discretion. In response, the appellant's counsel asserted that sufficient grounds were raised before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal regarding the merits supported by the documents in the paper books. The Tribunal was directed to consider both parties' submissions and make a decision in accordance with the law, with no costs imposed.