2010 (5) TMI 172

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The Tribunal has upheld the view taken by the CIT(A) in his order dated 26.6.2008. The revenue has thus challenged the concurrent findings by urging that the following substantive questions of law would arise for determination of this Court:- "(I) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in entertaining the additional evidence as per Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules even though despite numerous opportunities provided to produce the evidence in support of its claim and inspite of this, the assessee had failed to do so? (II) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the Ld. CIT....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... addition to the income of the assessee. The Tribunal has also referred the judgment rendered in the case of Honest Group of Hotels (P) Ltd. V. CIT, 123 Taxman 464 (J&K); and ITO v. JMP Enterprises, 18 TLR 277 (Amritsar). 3. At the hearing we asked Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, learned counsel for the revenue to apprise us about the status of the aforesaid judgments of the Tribunal. It appears that the revenue has not filed any appeal against those judgments. Ms. Dhugga has not been able to point out that the revenue has filed any appeal against the orders passed by the Chandigarh Bench or Amritsar Bench. If the aforesaid orders have been accepted by the revenue then the principle of consistency would be applicable, as have been laid down by Hon'b....