Case Law Details
Braganza Construction (P.) Ltd. Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court)
The issue under consideration is that Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in holding that the said amount of Rs.80 lakhs is deemed to be unexplained expenditure under proviso, to section 69C, of the IT Act, without considering the evidence/ material placed on record by the assessee, justifying that the said amount was expended by assessee from bank account ?
It is quite clear that the ITAT does have the power to permit production of additional evidence before the Tribunal if 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.
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, HC, for the aforesaid reasons, set aside the impugned judgment and order by the ITAT and remand the the file of the ITAT, Panaji, for fresh. HC 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.
Needless to add, that the ITAT shall afford opportunity of hearing to both the parties and only thereafter decide the appeal which HC have now remanded to it. This appeal is accordingly disposed off in the aforesaid terms.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
