TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal sets aside Commissioner's order due to improper admission of evidence, remands issues for fresh decision.</h1> <h3>Income-tax Officer, Nabha Versus Prem Kumar Jindal</h3> Income-tax Officer, Nabha Versus Prem Kumar Jindal - [2009] 27 SOT 228 (CHD.) Issues involved: Appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 8-6-2007 pertaining to the assessment year 2001-02. Main grounds of appeal include alleged gift from an NRI, addition of income from undisclosed sources, and allowance of expenditure without proper verification.Ground No. 5 - Admission of Additional Evidence:The revenue challenged the admission of additional evidence by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) under Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962. The Assessing Officer had made additions based on lack of evidence provided by the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) considered fresh evidence, including a sale deed and affidavit, which were not presented during the assessment proceedings. The Revenue contended that the admission of new evidence violated the rules governing such proceedings.Ground Nos. 1-4 - Merits of Additions:Three additions were made by the Assessing Officer, including a sum credited in the capital account, a gift from an NRI, and expenditure on mitti. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted some of these additions based on new evidence submitted by the assessee, such as affidavits and documents supporting the transactions. However, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order due to the improper admission of additional evidence, directing a fresh consideration of the merits of the additions.The Tribunal found that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) did not provide reasons for admitting the additional evidence as required by Rule 46A. The Tribunal held that the new evidence was considered in violation of the rules, leading to the setting aside of the Commissioner's order. The appeal of the revenue was allowed for statistical purposes, and the issues were remanded back to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.
TaxTMI 