TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (8) TMI 9
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent under the Act comprising the Assessment Years 1987-88 to 1997-98. b) On February 18, 1997, a search was conducted by the Income-tax Department at the place of the business and residential premises of the appellant. In course of the said search, the appellant was required to make a statement between midnight on February 18, 1997 and 2 p.m. on February 19, 1997. c) The appellant stated, inter alia, as regards his total investment in shares. He had disclosed shares in the company called Jamsehdpur Cement Ltd. of Rs.11 lac and that shares amounting to Rs.8 lac in Jamshedpur Cement Ltd. were purchased in different names which the appellant admitted as belonging to him. d) According to the appellant, subsequently on going through the record, he found that the shares of amount of Rs.8 lac adverted to in his statement in course of search were actually held by two limited companies, namely, Fairdeal Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. (55,000 shares of Rs.10/- each amounting to Rs.5,50,000/-) and Usha Karna India Pvt. Ltd. (38,500 shares of Rs.10/- each amounting to Rs.3,85,000/-). The said two companies had made the investments out of their own funds and the same were d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....addition of Rs.7,82,800/-. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by an order dated October 11, 2000 deleted the said addition of Rs.7,82,800/- made in the assessment. j) Being dissatisfied, the Revenue preferred an appeal against the said appellate order before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal by order dated July 7, 2003 allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue. k) The Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the seized paper in fact reflected actual transaction whereby the appellant purchased the shares and as such the appellant's statement was corroborated by the said seized paper. Being dissatisfied, the appellant has come up with the present appeal. At the time of admission of this appeal, a Division Bench of this Court formulated the following substantial question of law: "Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in withdrawing the relief granted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and its purported findings that the appellant had not furnished any evidence and upholding the addition of Rs.7,82,800/- made by the Assessing Officer have been arrived at by ignoring the relevant materials and/or by taking into consideration irrelevan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d be taken into consideration. Mr. Shome contends that in the case before us no application was even filed for taking into consideration the said affidavit and thus there is no occasion for taking into consideration such affidavit. Mr. Shome further contends that till today even the appellant has not filed any application for taking note of additional evidence even before this Court. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal filed by the assessee. The only question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the Tribunal below was justified in setting aside the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we find that the Assessing Officer took note of the letter subsequently written by the assessee vide his letter dated January 14, 2000 by which he sought to retract from his statement earlier made. By the said letter, he explained that the investment was made out of the fund in form of capital/loan/advance amount with J. Motors Accessories Stores where he was a partner, Fairdeal Automobiles Ltd. and J. Motors Accessory Stores Ltd. of which he was a dire....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the same and formal application must be filed and at the same time, specific order must be recorded by the CIT (Appeals) allowing such prayer and specifying the point on which such additional evidence should be taken. If such application is allowed, the other side must be given opportunity to adduce evidence of rebuttal. In the case before us, the CIT (Appeals) did neither accept the affidavit by passing any order nor did it rely upon such affidavit annexed to the written note of argument but allowed the appeal on a different ground which is not tenable in the eye of law. The assessee did not even pray before the Tribunal for allowing the acceptance of the affidavit of the broker and even before us, no application has been filed for acceptance of such affidavit as additional evidence. Thus, we do not find any substance in the contention of Mr. Khaitan that a duty was cast upon the Tribunal to look into such affidavit annexed to the written note of argument filed before the CIT (Appeals). From the materials on record we are convinced that no sufficient evidence has been produced by the appellant to rebut the statement made at the time search that he had invested Rs.8 la....