2015 (9) TMI 1246 - HC - Income Tax

High Court affirms ITAT decision dismissing appeal for assessment year 2004-05.

M/s Motia Constructions Limited Versus Commissioner of Income Tax

The High Court upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) to dismiss the appeal for assessment year 2004-05. The appellant failed to ... Dismissal of application for additional evidence as well as the appeal - disallowance of development expenses - Held that:- The appellant could have easily told the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Ludhiana that the vouchers were in possession of another Director who had left the company. The explanation appears to have manufactured for the purpose of furnishing an explanation. The vouchers are not signed by and on behalf of the assessee and there is no evidence as to whether these payments were made for business purposes etc and, therefore, even otherwise, irrelevant. The substantial question of law based upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tek Ram (dead through LRs) Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2013 (8) TMI 459 - SUPREME COURT ] is meaningless as documents produced by the assessee in the said case as additional evidence were found to be relevant. Reference to another judgment of this Court in CIT vs. Mukta Metal Works [2011 (2) TMI 250 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] is not tenable as additional evidence produced in the aforesaid case was held to be necessary for adjudication of the pending lis. - Decided against assessee. Issues:Challenge to order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissing appeal for assessment year 2004-05 based on authenticity of vouchers and additional evidence.Analysis:The appellant challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissing the appeal related to assessment year 2004-05. The issue arose when the Assessing Officer, post a search and seizure under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, added development expenses to the assessment order as the appellant failed to provide documentary evidence. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and the ITAT rejected the appeal on the same grounds. However, the appellant later found relevant vouchers in possession of a resigned Director and filed an application for additional evidence before the ITAT. The ITAT rejected the application and the appeal, doubting the authenticity of the vouchers, considering it an afterthought by the appellant. The appellant raised substantial questions of law regarding the refusal to admit additional evidence and remand the matter for verification, citing relevant judgments. The High Court examined the impugned orders, vouchers, and submissions but found no interference warranted, as the Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure due to lack of evidence, a decision upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). The High Court noted that the appellant failed to produce evidence before lower authorities but presented vouchers before the ITAT, which lacked necessary authentication and details, leading to doubts on genuineness. The High Court dismissed the appeal, stating the appellant could have provided explanations earlier and the substantial questions of law were not applicable in this case.In summary, the High Court upheld the decision of the ITAT to dismiss the appeal, as the appellant failed to provide documentary evidence earlier, and the vouchers produced later lacked authenticity and necessary details. The High Court found no error in the ITAT's decision and dismissed the appeal, stating the substantial questions of law raised were not relevant in this context.