{"id":12750,"date":"2020-10-07T11:33:06","date_gmt":"2020-10-07T11:33:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/braganza-construction-pvt-ltd-v-acit-2020425-itr-115-panaji-bomhc\/"},"modified":"2021-04-15T07:49:38","modified_gmt":"2021-04-15T02:19:38","slug":"braganza-construction-pvt-ltd-v-acit-2020425-itr-115-panaji-bomhc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/braganza-construction-pvt-ltd-v-acit-2020425-itr-115-panaji-bomhc\/","title":{"rendered":"Braganza Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2020)425 ITR 115 \/ 193 DTR 332 (Panaji ) (Bom)(HC )"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Court held that\u00a0 the Appellate Tribunal had not considered the assessee&#8217;s application seeking leave to produce additional evidence at the stage of appeal by it. This amounted to failure to exercise jurisdiction which was vested in the Tribunal by virtue of the provisions in rule\u00a029\u00a0of the 1963 Rules. Upon exercise of such jurisdiction, thereafter, it was open to the Tribunal to examine whether the application made by the assessee fulfilled the parameters of rule\u00a029\u00a0of the Rules, 1963 or whether something was required to be said as regards the documents that were sought to be produced at the appellate stage. There was no discussion on whether such material could be admitted in evidence at the appellate stage and thereafter considered. The order of the Tribunal was to be set aside and the matter was to be remanded to the Tribunal for consideration of the assessee\u2019s application seeking leave to produce additional evidence before the Tribunal. Matter remanded.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S.254(1): Appellate Tribunal \u2013 Duties &#8211; Additional evidence \u2014Failure by Appellate Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction vested in it \u2014 Matter Remanded to  Appellate Tribunal [ S.69C 260A  ATR, 1963 , R.29  ] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12750","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-3jE","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12750","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12750"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12750\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":16717,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12750\/revisions\/16717"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12750"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12750"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12750"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}