Itxa/1522/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - Central Iv v. The Phoenix Mills Ltd

sbw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1522 OF 2012WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1625 OF 2012WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.116 OF 2013WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.170 OF 2013WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.171 OF 2013WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.232 OF 2013 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.326 OF 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax Central IV ..Appellant -Versus-The Phoenix Mills Ltd...Respondent ........... Mr. Arvind Pinto for the Appellant. Mr. J. D. Mistri, Senior Counsel, with Mr. A.K. Jasani for the Respondent. ........... CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE :- 21ST NOVEMBER, 2014 P.C.: In one of these Appeals and after reading the relevant paragraph 83 of the order of the Tribunal, we find no justification for raising a question and terming it as a question of law, that too substantial. The question is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Tribunal erred in confirming the order of the Commissioner in admitting additional evidence in contravention of Rule 46A and allowing relief on the basis of examination of such additional evidences without giving opportunity to the Assessing officer. 2]Para 83 of the order of the Tribunal reads as under:- “Before parting, we may clarify that the main grievance of the Revenue on most of the issues involved in this case is that the learned CIT(A) has given relief to the Assessee relying on the details and documents furnished before him for the first without giving opportunity to the Assessing Officer to verify the same. As already noted by us in this context, certain details were furnished by the Assessee before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceeding in support of its claim on various issues. Since the same were not found sufficient by the Assessing Officer, the Assessee furnished further details to support and substantiate its claim before the learned CIT(A) who duly examined/verified the same and decided the relevant issues on such examination/verification. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the grievance of the Revenue keeping in view especially the fact that the relevant details/documents furnished by the Assessee have been duly examined/verified by the learned CIT(A) himself.” 3]Upon a careful perusal of the same, we do not find any reason or justification for the Revenue to make such a grievance. The Tribunal has opined that a certain claim was raised before the Assessing Officer. The details furnished by the Assessee in the opinion of the Assessing Officer were not adequate. He called for further clarifications and details which wadhwa were provided. What has transpired thereafter and before the Commissioner is that the Assessee being aggrieved by the final order of the Assessing Officer argued before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), first Appellate Authority that on the basis of the available material and when it was prepared to substantiate its claim, that a opportunity be given to them to do so. The Commissioner did not admit any additional evidence as is clear from para-83 but decided the issue or claims on the basis of the material before the Assessing officer and the substantiation provided by the Assessee during the course of proceedings.4]To our mind, Rule 46A and grievance based thereon, could not have been, therefore, raised and in the given facts and circumstances. None of these Appeals raise the question of law which can be termed as substantial. Each of these Appeals are devoid of merits and, therefore, the Appeals are dismissed. No orders as to costs. (A. A. SAYED, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) 3/3