AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 795
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (in short, "the Tribunal") under Section 254(1) of the Act in ITA No.72/Chd/2011, upholding penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the assessment year 2006-07, claiming following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer of imposing the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act? 2. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in not admitting the evidence under Rule 29 of the Income tax Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963 being vital piece of evidence and have bearing over th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer asked the appellant to file confirmation qua certain sundry creditors outstanding as on 31.3.2006. The appellant submitted confirmation of five creditors out of nine. The appellant was not in good relations with the creditors and therefore they refused to sign the confirmations. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 22.12.2008, Annexure A.1 made addition under Section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 5,24,000/-. The respondent also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide letter dated 3.6.2009. The appellant appeared before the respondent and submitted that for the last few years, he was not maintaining good relations with the creditors and therefore they refus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the assessment order was passed on 22.12.2008. Some of the documents sought to be produced were prior to the passing of the assessment order. No explanation had been given why the same had not been filed earlier before the authorities below. No proof had been produced regarding the custody of the assessee in jail for not filing the documents before the authorities below. Even the application for admission of additional evidence had been filed on 14.6.2011 i.e. after three years of the passing of the assessment order. After considering the entire material on record and the case law on the point, the Tribunal declined to admit the additional evidence produced by the appellant. Further the amount in question i.e. Rs. 5,24,000/- pertaining t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Therefore, same may be admitted for hearing. He has also relied upon decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Test Hundred India (P) Limited 51 DTR 251 in which it was held that "Tribunal can admit additional evidence on the application of one of the parties, if it is of the opinion that doing so would be necessary for proper adjudication of the matter and that such party was prevented by sufficient cause from leading such an evidence before the lower authorities". The learned DR, however, strongly objected to the admission of the additional evidence and submitted that no reasons have been explained why same were not filed before the authorities below and that for proving genuine credits, it is well settled law that assessee sha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot produced any confirmation or evidence before the Assessing Officer to prove all the three conditions and has virtually vide letter dated 22.12.2008 (PB- 23) agreed to surrender the amount of Rs. 5,24,000/- for the purpose of taxation and to pay the tax. This letter is signed by assessee. The theory of assessee in jail at assessment stage is false.Thus, the crux of the matter would be that the amount in question i.e.Rs. 5,24,000/- pertaining to four of the creditors remained unexplained, false and bogus in the books of account of the assessee. The assessee has failed to explain as to how the documents now sought to be admitted pertain to the matter in issue or have any relevance to the matter in issue. No reasons have also been explained ....