Income Tax, Sambalpur v. M/S. Pawanjay Sponge Iron

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ITA No.83 of 2022 And I.A. No.56 of 2023 Principal Commissioner of ..... Income Tax, Sambalpur Appellant versus- M/s. Pawanjay Sponge Iron ..... Ltd., Rourkela Respondent Advocates appeared in this case: For appellant : Mr. Avinash Kedia, Advocate (Junior Standing Counsel) For respondent : Mr. R.P. Kar, Sr. Advocate CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO J U D G M E N T ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing and judgment : 16[th] December, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ARINDAM SINHA, J. 1.Mr. Kar, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of –respondentassessee and submits, his instructions are not to oppose the application for condonation of reported delay at 91 days. Mr. Kedia, learned advocate, Junior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of applicant/appellant-revenue. 2.Perused the application. We accept causes shown in appreciation of fair stand taken by Mr. Kar. The delay is condoned. The application is disposed of. 3.Mr. Kedia submits, revenue seeks admission of the appeal on substantial questions of law arising from order dated 21[st] January, 2022 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in ITA no.404/CTK/2018 pertaining to assessment year 2013-14. He submits, there was violation of rule 46A in Income Tax Rules, 1962 made by the Commissioner (Appeals), to delete the addition of ₹ 7.7 crores. made by the Commissioner (Appeals), to delete the addition of 4.On query made Mr. Kar refers to paragraphs-3 and 10 in impugned order. Paragraph-3 is reproduced below. “3.The only issue agitated by the revenue in the grounds of appeal but the ld CIT (A) was not justified in deleting the addition of Rs.7,70,00,000/- violating the provisions of rule 46A of I.T. Rules, 1962 in not granting opportunity to the AO to rebut the additional evidence relied upon by the ld CIT (A).” 5. We see from paragraph-10 findings of fact made by the Tribunal. It said, before the Assessing Officer (AO) documents were produced regarding the addition made. The documents were not properly considered by the AO, in making the addition. The Tribunal goes on to say similar documents were furnished by the assessee along with written submission before the Commissioner (Appeals). We put question to the parties on whether similar meant additional new documents. The answer is in the negative. As such, the Tribunal being last forum on finding of facts, found that no new documents were placed before the Commissioner (Appeals). 6.Rule 46A provides for circumstances, in which additional documents can be produced before the Appellate Authority. In this case we do not need to go into the circumstances because no new documents were produced. 7.No question, let alone a substantial question of law arises from impugned order. 8.The appeal is dismissed. ( Arindam Sinha ) Judge ( M.S. Sahoo ) Judge Jyostna/Radha Signature Not Verified Digitally SignedSigned by: JYOSTNARANI MAJHEEReason: AuthenticationLocation: ORISSA HIGH COURTDate: 16-Dec-2024 18:45:24 ITA no.83 of 2022 and I.A. no.56 of 2023