TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (1) TMI 105
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ues raised in all the three appeals are similar, they are being disposed of by this common order. According to the Revenue, the orders of the Tribunal involve the following substantial questions of law: (Questions proposed in appeal for the assessment year 1996-97) "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law to admit additional evidence and granting relief to the assessee on the basis of this evidence in violation of rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the evide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee to various concerns were sham and a colourable device to evade tax. Accordingly, he disallowed the assessee's claim for depreciation on all the leased out assets. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Before the Commissioner, the assessee furnished voluminous evidence in support of its claim for depreciation. It was pleaded before the Commissioner that the assessee had not been allowed an opportunity to cross-examine the persons, who had denied having supplied the equipment to the assessee and whose statements had been relied upon by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner furnished the copies of evidence, so adduced, by the assessee to the Assessing Officer for his comment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the value of the assets for calculating the depreciation. We are of the view that the appeals, preferred by the Revenue, are devoid of any merit. It is manifestly clear from the order of the Commissioner that the additional evidence, adduced by the assessee before him, was entertained and its copies were given to the Assessing Officer for his comments though ultimately, the Commissioner did not find any substance in the appeals. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Commissioner did not entertain the additional evidence, as is being pleaded now. Instead, he found that the additional evidence also did not advance the case of the assessee. In that view of the matter, furnishing of the same evidence before the Tribunal is not tantamount to a....