2015 (11) TMI 1809

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nafter "the Rules"). 2. During hearing of this appeal Ld. DR Shri Pradeep K Singh, advanced his arguments which are identical to the ground raised by contending that provisions of section 41(1) of the Act was rightly invoked by the Assessing Officer and also the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) admitted additional evidence, without providing sufficient opportunity to the Assessing Officer, thus, it is violation of Rule 46A of the Rules. On the other hand, Shri Piyush Chaturvedi, Ld. Counsel for the assessee defended the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order. 3. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Facts in brief are that the assessee is engaged in the business of Ferrous and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....invoked the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. 4. On appeal, before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the facts were examined and following the various decisions from Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Courts and Apex Court decided in favour of the assessee by holding that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justified. The Revenue is aggrieved and is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. If observation made in the assessment order, conclusion drawn in the impugned order, material available on record, and the assertions made by the Ld. respective Counsels, if, kept in juxtaposition and analyzed. We note that the Ld. Assessing Officer made the addition to the total income as he found that there were huge sundry credito....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssing Officer. This additional evidence was duly sent to the Assessing Officer who vide report dated 22.01.2014 was duly considered. The assessee also filed rejoinder to the report, which has been reproduced at page 10 onwards of the impugned order, therefore, not repeated in this order, being matter of record. Thus, so far as the contention of the Ld. DR that there is a violation of Rule 46A of the Rules, is concerned, we find no such violation as the opportunity was granted to the Assessing Officer and in-turn, duly report was sent. Even otherwise, as per the provisions of the Act, the Ld. First Appellate Authority is entitled to admit additional evidence and further to decide in accordance with law. Our view is fortified by the decision ....