IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 29/RJT/2018 (cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रणवष (cid:91) / Assessment Year: (2012-13)

(Hybrid Hearing)

The DCIT, circle – 3(1), Vs. M/s. Sonpal Exports Pvt. Ltd.

Rajkot Aayakar bhavan, Room Dhari Bagsara Road, Nr. Ice No. 114, 1^st floor, race course Factory, Amreli ring road, Rajkot PAN No.: AAJCS0177N (Assessee) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. CIT(DR)

Date of Hearing : 24/06/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM;

By way of this appeal, the Revenue, has challenged correctness of the order dated 16.11.2017, passed by the learned CIT(A), in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, for the assessment year 2012-13. Grievances raised by the Revenue, which are interconnected and will be taken up together, are as follows:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 13,96,33,023/- holding that provision of section 195 will not be applicable.

2. On the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in ignoring the facts that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of foreign commission expenses before the A.O.

3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the C.I.T. (A) may be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent.

4. Any other grounds that the Revenue may raise before the Hon'ble ITAT during the hearing proceedings.”

2. Additional grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows:

“(i) The Learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law by admitting the additional evidence submitted by the assessee, which was not part of the assessment record.

(ii) The Learned CIT(A) erred in accepting the additional evidences without calling for a remand report from the assessing officer to examine the additional evidences/grounds, thereby violating the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

(ii) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which mandates that the CIT(A) shall not admit any additional evidence unless the assessing officer has been allowed a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence or to produce any evidence in rebuttal of such additional evidence.

(iv) In view of the above, the Hon'ble Tribunal may set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the Learned CIT(A) with directions to comply with the provisions of Rule 46A by providing the assessing officer an opportunity to examine and comment on the additional evidence submitted by the assessee."

Facts of the assessee`s case

3. The relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are as follows. The assessee is engaged in the business of Hulled Sesame seeds Manufacturing and Trading of Hulled and natural sesame seeds. The return of income was filed by M/s Sonpal Exports Pvt Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “assessee”) for assessment year (AY) 2012-13, on 30/09/2012, declaring total income of Rs. 1,64,75,250/-. The same was processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the returned income of Rs. 1,64,75,250/- without any modifications. Later on, the assessee`s case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, was issued to the assessee, on 07-08- 2013, which was duly served upon him on 22-08-2013. A notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, was also issued to the assessee, on 07-10-2014 which was duly served upon him. In response to the said notices, Authorized Representative of the assessee, has attended on behalf of the assessee, from time to time and furnished details and documents such as audit report, confirmation of various parties and sundry debtors and creditors, stock, sale and purchase details, ledger accounts of various expenses etc., which we