Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the addition made for alleged non-compliance with the investment requirement under section 11(5) could be sustained when the assessee produced additional evidence before the Tribunal and sought verification of the fixed deposit receipts.
Analysis: The assessee was required to invest the accumulated amount in the prescribed mode under section 11(5). The record showed that the supporting FDR evidence was not produced before the lower authorities, but the assessee tendered the same as additional evidence before the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted the additional evidence in the interest of justice, but since the material had not been verified by the Assessing Officer, the factual issue required fresh examination at the assessment stage.
Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification of the FDRs and for deciding the claim in accordance with law, with opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The addition was not finally affirmed and the dispute was restored for de novo verification, resulting in only partial relief to the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Additional evidence affecting a factual tax claim may be admitted in the interest of justice, but where such evidence has not been verified by the Assessing Officer, remand for fresh verification is appropriate.