Tribunal held that for supporting the order of AO certain agreements which were produced by the assessee before the AO was produced by the revenue. Accordingly admission of additional evidence is held to be justified. The Departmental representative is not making an altogether new argument but is supporting the argument of the AO. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Dy CIT ( 2009) 122 TTJ 577 (SB) (Mum.)(Trib.) is distinguished. (ITA No. 2020/Del/2017, dt. 14.06.2019)(AY. 2009-10, 2010-11)
Radhika Roy v. DCIT (2019) 200 TTJ 665 / 73 ITR 239 / 180 DTR 329 (Delhi)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org Dr. Prannoy Roy v. DCIT (2019) 200 TTJ 665 / 73 ITR 239 (Delhi)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org
S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal–Duties-Additional evidence– Supporting the order of AO certain agreements which were produced by the assessee before the AO was produced by the revenue–Admission of additional evidence is held to be justified. [ITAT R. 29]