IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
 . 
 . 
   ITA 313/2012  
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CIT DELHI-IV           ..... Appellant 
 . 
 Through : Sh. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate. 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 HUBER and SUHNER ELECTRONICS PVT LTD       ..... Respondent 
 . 
 Through : Nemo. 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 O R D E R 
 . 
      02.07.2012 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 The Revenue seeks to appeal against an order of the Income Tax 
 Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 14.09.2011 in ITA No. 4973/Del/2010, for 
 the Assessment Year (AY) 2005-06. 
 . 
 The Appellate Tribunal had remitted the matter for reconsideration 
 by the Assessing Officer with a further direction that he should pass a 
 speaking order in accordance with law, after giving the Assessee a 
 reasonable opportunity of being heard. The brief facts are that the 
 Assessee had claimed that its business was newly set-up on 03.01.2005 and 
 that for the relevant Assessment Year 2005-06, it had just transacted one 
 sale to the extent of Rs. 6790/-. The Assessee had claimed expenses 
 amounting to Rs.84,73,955/- and declared a book loss of Rs. 84,67,165/-. 
 During the course of the Assessee s appeal, reliance was placed on Rule 
 29 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 with a further request that it 
 should be permitted to adduce additional evidence. The Assessee 
 complained that it was not given proper opportunity by the Assessing 
 Officer since the Assessment Order was passed on the date when the matter 
 . 
 was fixed for hearing, at the Show Cause Notice stage. The Assessee further urged that when the appeal which was pending for more than three 
 years came up for hearing, it managed to place   its    hands    upon 
 certain     vital   documents     which    had   not been    placed    at 
 the   stage of filing   the      appeal.      Learned      counsel for 
 the     Revenue  urges  that   the  Tribunal fell into error  of  law in 
 . 
 permitting the Assessee to adduce additional evidence on the basis of its 
 application. Learned counsel urged that the applicable test is that the 
 Tribunal should be satisfied that there is a  substantial cause  which 
 persuades it to permit adoption of such evidence not previously produced. 
 Learned counsel urged that the mere vague assertion by the Assessee that 
 it had place relevant document, is insufficient. We notice that the 
 Assessee had claimed various expenses and had, at the same time, stated 
 that it had relied on one solitary trading activity. In these 
 circumstances, grant of opportunity to adduce evidence can hardly call 
 for interference by the High Court at this stage when a substantial 
 question of law exists. This Court is not persuaded to accept the 
 contentions of Revenue in this regard. The appeal is accordingly 
 dismissed. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 R.V.EASWAR, J 
 . 
 JULY      02, 2012 
 . 
 ajk 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 $ 3 
 .