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>Court rejects appeal due to lack of evidence; upholds lower authorities' decision.</h1> <h3>M/s DB BANDODKAR & SONS PVT LTD Versus (1) ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(2) ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX</h3> The High Court upheld the decision of the lower authorities, stating that no substantial question of law arose in the appeal. Despite multiple ... Unaccounted stock of 18869 Metric Tones (M.T) of ore - survey u/s 133(a) by DDIT(Inv) - application before ITAT for bringing additional evidence on record rejected as the relevant material was available with the assessing officer - Held that:- No substantial question of law will arise in this appeal as all the three authorities have taken into consideration material which is on record and have carefully given their finding. Inspite of the several opportunities given to the appellant the documentary evidence was not produced on record to establish the same and only at the time of hearing of the appeal before ITAT an application for bringing additional evidence on record was filed even then the said application was considered and was rejected by reasoned order. Therefore, no case is made out for interfering with the orders passed by the authorities below. All the authorities have considered the evidence on record. The appellant on the other hand is not being in a position to establish or to give satisfactory reason in respect of unaccounted iron ore to the tune of 18869 M. T - against assessee. Issues:Challenging common orders by Income Appellate Tribunal for Assessment Year 2005-06 and 2006-07.Analysis:The appellant challenged the orders passed by the Income Appellate Tribunal, which confirmed the orders of the CIT Appeals and the assessing officer. The case involved discrepancies related to unaccounted stock of iron ore and purchases from outside parties. The assessing officer found discrepancies in the closing stock of iron ore, leading to the reopening of the case. The appellant claimed that the ore was borrowed from another company for export requirements and was returned, but failed to provide sufficient evidence to support this claim. The Commissioner of Income Tax and the Tribunal rejected the appellant's contentions, stating that the appellant did not provide satisfactory evidence to prove the transactions. The Tribunal also rejected an application to bring additional evidence on record, as the appellant failed to produce relevant documentary evidence throughout the proceedings.Conclusion:The High Court upheld the decision of the lower authorities, stating that no substantial question of law arose in the appeal. The Court noted that despite multiple opportunities, the appellant failed to provide the necessary documentary evidence to support their claims regarding the unaccounted iron ore. The Court found that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application for additional evidence and dismissed the Income Tax Appeals for the relevant assessment years. The appeal was consequently dismissed, affirming the orders of the lower authorities.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
