2011 (7) TMI 508

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Officer towards arm's length consideration. The assessee is also having grievance against non admission of additional evidence by the CIT(A). 3. The Revenue is in appeal before us with regard to granting of relief by CIT(A) at 5% after categorically finding that the rate of 18 US$ per man hour adopted by the Assessing Officer is appropriate. 4. Brief facts of the issue that the TPO (Transfer pricing) u/s 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act, analysing the international transactions entered into by the assessee with the associate enterprise in USA and concluded that the payments @ USD 10 per man hour for services rendered to the USA Company were not at arm's length. While the USA Company made payments @ USD 22 per man hour to M/s WIPRO India, it....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e assessee court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined that this rule will apply. The discretion to receive additional evidence is to be exercised only when any point is required to be cleared up in the interests of justice. This power given to the Tribunal has to be exercised cautiously and sparingly in order to advance the interests of justice; Rule 29 is not intended to allow an assessee who has been unsuccessful throughout to intended to allow an assessee who has been unsuccessful throughout to patch up the weak parts of his case or to fill up omission. It is well settled that a party guilty of remissness and gross negligence as in this case is not entitled to indulgence being shown to adduce additional evid....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....patch up the weak parts of his case. In the present case, there is no justification for admitting the additional evidence adduced by the assessee, which is an unsigned writing stated to be sent by somebody as E-Mail four years ago, without any independent evidence to corroborate the contents of the message. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has rejected the appeal of the assessee for admissions of additional evidence, because none of the condition mentioned in Rule 46A are fulfilled in this case. 7. Further, though he confirmed the rate adopted by the Assessing Officer at 18 USD per man hour after considering the rate adopted for payment to M/s WIPRO Ltd., by US foreign Company, he observed that an adjustment of 5% is to be made by way of....