The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by allowing revenue to submit additional evidence without a proper basis under Rule 29, which prohibits parties from independently introducing such evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Suddala Chalapathi Rao, J.

1. The instant appeals have been filed challenging the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench-A (for short ‘the learned ITAT’) in ITA.No.1463/HYD/2017 and ITA.No.1464/HYD/2017, both dt.31.05.2022 relating to the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14, respectively.

2. As both appeals emanate from proceedings concerning the same assessee and raise common issues, though pertaining to two different assessment years, they are analogously heard and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

THE BRIEF FACTS:

3. The appellant-company is a public limited company engaged in the research, production, and sale of hybrid seeds and open-pollinated seed varieties of various crops. The appellant filed its return for the assessment years 2012-13 admitting a total income of Rs.17.778 crores under the normal provisions and book profit of Rs.14.74 crores under Section 115JB, and for the assessment year 2013-14, it admitted a total income of Rs.43.64 crores under the normal provisions and book profit of Rs.40.92 crores under Section 115JB.

4. The Assessing Authority passed separate assessment orders on 30.03.2015 for both the assessment years. For the assessment year 2012-13 additions of Rs.50,94,74,053/- towards disallowance under Section 10(1) and Rs.1,00,08,831/- towards disallowance under Section 14A were made, resulting in determination of total income at Rs.69,73,27,348/-. For the assessment year 2012-13, additions of Rs.91,45,53,234/- towards disallowance under Section 10(1) and Rs.1,48,39,684/- towards disallowance under Section 14A were made, determining total income at Rs.136,58,86,808/-.

5. Challenging the said assessment orders, the assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)(for short ‘the CIT(A)’). The CIT(A) after due enquiry and appreciation of facts and material on record, partly allowed the appeals by deleting the disallowance made under Section 10(1) of the Act, while confirming the disallowance made under Section 14A of the Act.

6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee as well as the Revenue preferred appeals before the learned ITAT in ITA.No.1463/HYD/2017 and ITA.No.1464/HYD/2017. By a common order, dt.31.05.2022, the learned ITAT remanded both the matters to the Assessing Officer (AO) with a direction to examine whether nature of business of the assessee is agriculture or not, and also to recompute the disallowance depending upon the determination of the nature of the business of the assessee.

7. Aggrieved by the said remand orders passed by the learned ITAT in ITA.No.1463/HYD/2017 and ITA.No.1464/HYD/2017, the assessee has filed the instant appeals.

8. Before dwelling into the substantial questions arising for consideration in these appeals, it is pertinent to advert to the subsequent events that transpired during the pendency of the appeals before the learned ITAT.

9. During the pendency of the said appeals before the learned ITAT, a search was conducted by the department on 04.01.2018 at various business premises of the appellant, pursuant to which, certain incriminating material was alleged to have been unearthed. Consequent thereto, a notice under Section 153Aof the Act was issued on 24.12.2018. The validity of the search as w