9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and against the revenue. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the main matter or without even going in the merits of the application made by the appellant seeking leave to produce additional evidence at the appellate stage, we, for the aforesaid reasons, set aside the impugned judgment - TAX APPEAL NO. 47 OF 2012 - - - Dated:- 6-12-2019 - M.S. SONAK C.V. BHADANG, JJ. Mr. S. R. Rivankar and Mr. Rama Rivankar, Advocates for the Appellant. Ms. Susan Linhares, Standing Counsel for the Respondent. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M. S. Sonak, J) 1. Heard Mr. Rivankar, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Ms. Susan Linhares, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 2. By ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to deemed unexplained expenditure under the proviso to Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (IT Act, for short). The ITAT in the impugned judgment and order has held that an amount of ₹ 80 lakhs expended by the appellant was required to be treated as unexplained expenditure and, consequently, deemed income of the appellant-assessee. In the appeal before the ITAT, the appellant has produced on record certain documents by its application dated 3rd May, 2011. The documents, inter alia, include reference to certain cheques, which, Mr. Rivankar, the learned Counsel for the appellant, explains as the source of the amount and the source of the expenditure. Along with the application, even agreement dated 30th March, 2004 is produced. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ording to us, at this stage, we are really not required to go into the issue as to whether the production of such additional evidence was to be allowed or not. From the impugned judgment and order, what we find is that the ITAT has not even considered the appellant's application seeking leave to produce additional evidence at the stage of appeal by it. This, according to us, amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction, which, by virtue of the provisions in Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, was undoubtedly vested in the ITAT. Upon exercise of such jurisdiction, thereafter, it is open to the ITAT to examine whether the application made by the appellant indeed fulfils the parameters of Rule 29 of the Income Tax (A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case for the same is indeed made out by the parties. This means that the Tribunal is duty bound to consider the application seeking leave to produce additional evidence at the appellate stage. Since this has not been done, the substantial question of law, now framed, is required to be answered in favour of the appellant and against the revenue. 11. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the main matter or without even going in the merits of the application made by the appellant seeking leave 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 the ITAT, Panaji, for fresh adjudication. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
