TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 1861
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s raised by the Revenue in assessment year 2008-09 are as under : 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)- IT/TP erred in accepting the additional evidence which is factually incorrect on the basis of TP study report submitted by the assessee. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)- IT/TP erred in accepting the contention of the assessee that the assessee is engaged in the manufacturing activity, when no such details were submitted in TP proceedings. 3. For these and such other reasons as may be urged at the time of hearing, the order of the CIT(A)-IT/TP, Pune may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 4. The appellant craves leave to add....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 09-12-2013 and the Assessing Officer furnished his report vide letter dated 02-01-2014. The ld. DR submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in admitting additional evidence without recording the reasons as mandated under Rule 46A(1) & (2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The assessee has failed to show reasonable cause for not producing the documents before TPO which were furnished as additional evidence before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). No reason whatsoever has been given by the assessee indicating the circumstances which prevented the assessee from producing the documents at the time of assessment. The ld. DR submitted that merely forwarding of documents for comments to Assessing Officer/TPO submit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he fact that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing and trading activities. The ld. AR asserted that the Assessing Officer/TPO was given opportunity to examine the documents furnished by the assessee as additional evidence before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee has not raised any new issue or fresh plea before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The ld. AR prayed for dismissing the appeals of the Revenue. 5. We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of authorities below. We have also examined the case laws and the documents on which both the sides have placed reliance. The solitary issue raised by the Revenue in both the appeals is against admission of fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....study report reads as under : "Further, we have been informed that during the financial year ended 31 March 2007, Stauff India has started the facilities for assembling of accessories and components (i.e. flanges). During the year FY 2007-08, Stauff India manufactured (assembled) and exported Flanges of Rs. 8,747,907 to Germany. In substance, the detailed process undertaken by Stauff India in terms of the said assembling function vis-à-vis trading function for the purpose of export has been provided in the table below : Process Export of Finished Goods Manufactured Process Purchase of Raw Forgings Vendor-Material Vendor-Material Machining In-house Vendor-Labour Platting Outsourced, logistics and cost arranged by Stauff I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and receipts) adduced by the assessee without verification and without affording opportunity to the Assessing Officer to cross-verify and examine the same. - In Income Tax Officer Vs. Prem Kumar Jindal (supra) the Tribunal restored the appeal back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to follow the provisions of Rule 46A before admitting additional evidence. In the said case, however, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has given opportunity to Assessing Officer to offer his comments. 8. From perusal of the judgments of Hon'ble High Courts it emerges that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) admitted additional evidence without giving chance to Assessing Officer to rebut or crossexamine the fresh material filed as additi....