2013 (4) TMI 37

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../s. 143(3) dated 14-12-2011 determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.30,80,190 after making addition on account of long term capital gain on transfer of property of Rs.26,96,570/-. Aggrieved by the order of A.O. assessee carried the matter before CIT (A). CIT (A) vide order dated 10-9-2012 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Against the order of CIT (A) the assessee is now in appeal before us. The grounds raised by assessee reads as under:- "1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming action of A.O. in making addition of Rs.29,96,570/- on account of long term capital gains. Both the lower authorities erred in not appreciating the documentary evidence on record that the appellant had no legal right or interest in th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the controversy requested for admission under rule 46A was executed before the date of receipt of order. Ld. CIT (A) ought to have admitted the additional evidence to appreciate the issue. 5. Levy of interest under section 234A/B/C of the Act is not justified. 6. Initiation of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified." 4. Out of the various grounds of appeal before us one of the ground raised by assessee is that the CIT (A) has erred in not admitting the additional evidence sought to be raised under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 5. Before us the Ld. A.R. submitted that one of the important documents for adjudicating the controversy viz. the deed of relinquishment was submitted before the CIT (A) as additional eviden....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at the time of original assessment proceedings. To decide the case, an A.O. is required to consider evidences which were in existence till the time of passing of the order. In case, for certain justifiable reasons, the said evidence could not be produced by the assessee, the assessee can exercise the option of requesting for admission of such evidences during the appellate proceedings. In the instant case, the same has not been the case. The evidence under consideration is created after the passing of the assessment order i.e. on 16-12-2011.Even the assessee has himself admitted that the said evidence comprising a rectification deed was created on16-12-2011 itself. Without prejudice to the argument that the evidence under consideration is i....