TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 74
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aged in the business of manufacture and export of steel coffee makers. For the impugned assessment year, the assessee had filed its return on 30.9.2008 disclosing income of Rs. 72,60,800/-. The same was 'summarily' processed. Thereafter, the assessee filed a 'revised' return on 30.3.2010. This time, it claimed loss of Rs. 8,22,648/-. 3. In the course of 'scrutiny', the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act 24.8.2009. The assessee was duly represented by its auditor. We find that in the assessment order dated 27.12.2010 that the Assessing Officer made additions of Rs. 72,60,802/- regarding deduction u/s 10B of the Act for want of proof or evidence like approval, foreign inward remittance certificates and realization of expor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s for charges incurred for Job Works for the Financial year 2007-2008(Annexure - 5 Book No.4)(vi) Financials and Balance-sheet for the Assessment year 2008-09 (Annexure -6)(vii) Details of Payment and Tax Deduction and Deposit of tax into Central Government Account for the period 01.04.2005 to 31.05.2006 (Annexure - 7 )The appellant submits that the above documents are crucial to the adjudication of the issues agitated in appeals. The non-filing of the above at the time of assessment is for the reason that the documents were- never sought by the Assessing Authority and no opportunity was granted to the appellant prior to the finalization of the assessments. The non-filing of the documents, therefore, is neither willful or wanton, but only f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer. As per the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) had adjourned the matter for final arguments on 15.5.2013 but passed the order under challenge on 29.4.2013. We make it clear that before us, the assessee has not raised any argument assailing the additions in question made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). In this manner, acceptance of the appeal has been prayed for on behalf of the assessee. 6. The Revenue has strongly supported the CIT(A)'s order under challenge. 7. We have heard both sides and gone through the case file. There is no dispute that in the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had issued a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 24.8.2009. Thereafter, the assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... admission of additional evidence afresh in the 'Tribunal' proceedings but the issue is as to whether the CIT(A) has rightly or wrongly rejected the petition under Rule 46A. Since the arguments raised by the assessee qua bank dispute and other factors are nowhere pleaded in the additional evidence petition, the same amounts to improving the version stated in Rule 46A petition. In our view, this is not permissible in the eyes of law. We reiterate that Rule 46A qua admission of additional evidence is confined to the peculiar circumstances stated therein and does not apply in each and every case. So, we hold that the CIT(A) has rightly rejected the prayer for admission of additional evidence raised by the assessee. 9. The third argument raise....