TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (7) TMI 92
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... facts of the case that the assessee failed to establish evidence before the Assessing Officer. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts deleting addition of Rs.2,62,81,720/- by accepting additional evidence from Syndicte Bank without affording Assessing Officer opportunity to examine. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief to the assessee by accepting additional evidence furnished by GM, syndicate Bank without giving any opportunity to the Assessing Officer examine the same. 4. The appellant craves to be allowed to add any fresh grounds of appeal and/or delete or amend any of the grounds of appeal." 2. The assessee is a civil contractor and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Manish Build Well (P.) Ltd, cited supra, has held as under :- "Since the Commissioner (Appeals) himself refers to rule 46A and has also admitted that the confirmation letters adduced by the assessee before him were technically fresh evidence, it is not possible to accept the plea of the assessee that the Commissioner (Appeals), in examining the confirmation letters, was exercising his independent powers of enquiry under sub-section (4) of section 250. It is true that the Commissioner (Appeals), as first appellate authority, has co-terminous powers over the sources of income constituting the subject-matter of the assessment, except the power to tackle new sources of income not considered by the Assessing Officer, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r sub-section (4) of section 250. This would mean in turn that the requirement of recording reasons for admitting the additional evidence, the requirement of examining whether the conditions for admitting the additional evidence are satisfied, the requirement that the Assessing Officer should be allowed a reasonable opportunity of examining the evidence, etc., can be thrown to the winds, a position which is wholly unacceptable and may result in unacceptable and unjust consequences. The fundamental rule which is valid in all branches of law, including Income-tax law, is that the assessee should adduce the entire evidence in his possession at the earliest point of time. This ensures full, fair and detailed enquiry and verification. It is for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ho is in appeal before him, invokes rule 46A. it is incumbent upon the Commissioner (Appeals) to comply with the requirements of the rule strictly. In the instant case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the additional evidence should be admitted because the assessee was prevented by adducing them before the Assessing Officer. This observation takes care of clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of rule 46A. The observation of the Commissioner (Appeals) also takes care of sub-rule (2) under which he is required to record his reasons for admitting the additional evidence. Thus, the requirements of sub-rules (1) and (2) of rule 46A have been complied with. However, sub-rule (3) which interdicts the Commissioner (Appeals) from taking into accoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... any documents or make any further enquiry as he thinks fit, there was no violation of rule 46A is erroneous. The Tribunal appears to have not appreciated the distinction between the two provisions. If the view of the Tribunal is accepted, it would make rule 46A otiose and it would open up the possibility of the assessees' contending that any additional evidence sought to be introduced by them before the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be subjected to the conditions prescribed in rule 46A because in any case the Commissioner (Appeals) is vested with coterminous powers over the assessment orders or powers of independent enquiry under sub-section (4) of section 250. That is a consequence which cannot at all be countenanced. For the above reaso....