2014 (3) TMI 811

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2010 (Assessment year 2001-02). The assessee has claimed the following substantial questions of law in the present appeal: (i)Whether in facts and circumstances of the present case, the action of the Ld. Authorities below in wrongly construing the offer to surrender as an admission and the inability on the part of the appellant/assessee to produce evidence and therefore confirming the addition of Rs.11,67, 655/- being the sales outside the books of account and 5% of profit on the said purchases is legally unsustainable the eyes of law? (ii)Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee acting under the bonafide belief after making the offer to surrender was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence and th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re parts to the purchasers. The appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). However, in further appeal, the Tribunal remitted back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to allow a reasonable opportunity to both the parties to take into consideration the purchase and sales of the spares. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered the additional evidence sought to be produced by the appellant and returned the following finding: "3.1 I do not accept the appellant's application for admission of fresh evidence at this stage of appellate proceedings. Firstly, this issue was very much before the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The AO had asked the assessee to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the ld. counsel for the assessee only on 04.11.2003 i.e. after almost 9 months. In this period, the assessee was not able to produce any evidence that these spare parts/kits had been given free of cost to the purchasers. I am, therefore, satisfied that the conditions prescribed in Rule 46A of I.T. Rules for allowing admission of additional evidence are not satisfied in respect of the documents sought to be admitted at this stage." In view of the said finding, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer applying net profit of 5%. Such order has been affirmed in further appeal by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant has lead sufficient evidence to prove t....