2016 (9) TMI 816

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aggrieved revenue has come up in appeal, which was admitted on 20th April, 2010 and the following question of law was formulated:  "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in law in passing the order without considering the fact that fresh evidences submitted by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is in contravention of Sub Rule 2 of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 ?" The question suggests that the assessee relied upon fresh evidence before the CIT(A). Before the learned Tribunal the revenue failed to identify the fresh evidence allegedly adduced by the assessee before the CIT(A). The ground of appeal before the learned Tribunal was amongst other as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....med by allowing the grounds of appeal taken by the Department." Evidently, the submissions advanced on behalf of the revenue do not identify any new evidence allegedly adduced by the assessee before the CIT(A). Moreover, from the order of the CIT(A) it appears that he had forwarded the papers submitted by the assessee to the Assessing Officer asking the latter to identify if any fresh evidence was being relied upon by the assessee. The Assessing Officer, in his report, did not give any answer to that question, which will be evident from the following observations made by the CIT(A) in his order dated 8th October, 2007 : " Copy of the paper book was sent to the Assessing Officer by my letter dt.13.3.2007 which also directed u/s 2....