2014 (3) TMI 497

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../s. Surbhi International were accounted in the books of accounts and supported by sufficient documentary evidence. 2. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs 4, 71, 565/- as bogus transaction made by the learned assessing officer in respect of the amount paid to M/s. Sai Raj Enterprises towards labour charges & supply of material. 3. The CIT(A) erred in holding the purchase of tiles from M/s New Saral Ceramics amounting to Rs. 5, 41, 440/- as bogus transaction which pertains to A. Y. 2008-09 instead of A. Y. 2007-08. 4. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, the CIT (A) erred in confirming the additions made on the above ground of appeals without appreciating the method of accounting followed by the Appellant a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o159)were furnished before the Tribunal for the first time, that same were not available to the assessee at the time of assessment/appellate proceedings, that such details came in possession of the assessee after the order of the FAA, that assessee had made applications under the RTI Act and had collected the fresh evidences, that the documents obtained by it were directly related with issues to be decided by the Tribunal, that the said documents were produced in the penalty proceedings as well as in the assessment proceedings for subsequent years. AR relied on the ratio laid by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Prabhavati Shah(231ITR1)in this regard. Departmental representative (DR) argued that additional evidences furn....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nterest of justice once the Tribunal affirms the opinion that doing so would be necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. This can be done even when an application is filed by one of the parties to the appeal and it need not to be a suo motu action of the Tribunal. Rule 29 is made enabling the Tribunal to admit the additional evidence in its discretion if the Tribunal holds the view that such additional evidence would be necessary to do substantial justice in the matter. Once it is found that the party intending to lead evidence before the Tribunal for the first time was prevented by sufficient cause from leading such an evidence and that this evidence would have a material bearing on the issue which needs to be decided by the Tribun....