TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 960
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed u/s 144 of the Act and challenging the rejection of the application of the assessee for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Secondly, the assessee has challenged upholding the action of the ld. Assessing Officer in disallowing and making addition on various other seven issues. At the outset, we take legal grounds of the assessee which read as under:- "That the order dated 31-07-2012 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) XXI, New Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Learned Assessing Officer to complete/pass the assessment u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by ignori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ucing details of various expenses before the Assessing Officer beyond the control of the assessee, the Assessing Officer was not justified in completing the assessment order u/s 144 of the Act. The AR vehemently contended that the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) was also not justified in rejecting the plea of the assessee for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules submitted during the course of first appellate proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax(A). The ld. AR has drawn our attention towards copy of application filed by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) under Rule 46A of the Rules (Paper Book page No. 1 to 426) dated 3.11.2000 which comprises photocopy of the Panchnama and let....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on some dates of hearing and informed that the books and records of the assessee have been seized by the financial institution, therefore, the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the details pertaining to the various claims of expenses before the Assessing Officer. This explanation of the assessee seems to be proper and acceptable in the light of FIR dated 14.12.2009 filed with the In charge, Police Station, Khuskhera, Distt. Alwar (Rajasthan) informing that besides other articles, computer documents pertaining to sales tax and income tax had been stolen from the factory office premises. The same cause has been also mentioned in the application of the assessee filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) on 3.11.201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssion of the working unit, then the assessee found that besides other valuable articles, the computer documents pertaining to sales tax and income tax had been stolen and the assessee informed local jurisdictional Police Station in this regard by filing an application on 14.12.2009 (PB page No. 18 & 19). From Paper Book page no. 20, we also observe that the assessee filed another complaint on 10.2.2010 to In charge Police Station, Bhiwadi against its security agency Brettonwood Finlease Pvt. Ltd. stating that the computer, statutory records, accounting records and other relevant record and stock had been taken out and missing from the office premises of the factory of the assessee. In these facts and circumstances, we clearly observe that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....justified and incorrect grounds and observations and findings of Commissioner of Income Tax(A) in this regard are set aside. 8. Since the assessee could not get due opportunity to support its claim of expenses and other deductions because the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing relevant details, records and books of accounts before the Assessing Officer and the same was again submitted before the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) with an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules which was also rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) on unjustified reasons and grounds. In above set of facts and circumstances, we find it appropriate to restore the entire issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication ....