2014 (7) TMI 1326

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erest on enhanced compensation Rs. 16,44,905/- Total Rs. 46,89,810/- On the basis of information from Land Acquisition Collector, HUDA, the Assessing Officer held that assessee and his brother Shri Nishant Chaudhary received enhanced compensation of Rs. 58,82,410/- plus Rs. 2,07,410/-. In other words, total sum received was Rs. 60,89,820/- and half of which, i.e. Rs. 30,44,905/- was assessed to tax as income of the assessee. Apart from the above, assessee and his brother, Shri Nishant Chaudhary were paid Rs. 1,63,270/- on 25.06.2006 and Rs. 31,26,541/- on 11.10.2006 totaling to Rs. 32,89,811/- on account of interest on enhanced compensation. The Assessing Officer brought to tax half share of the assessee as income, i.e. Rs. 16,4....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....roceedings otherwise by way of a revised return of income. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in entertaining the additional evidence under Rule 46A of the LT. Rules,1962 without passing a speaking order ignoring the fact that the AO allowed sufficient opportunities to the assessee to file the same during assessment proceedings. 4. The Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off." 3. At the outset of the hearing, the ld. AR submitted that there was a common order of CIT (A), Rohtak in the name of assessee and his brother, Shri Nishant Chaudhary. The matter has traveled to the ITAT in the case of his brother and the r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ould not be disputed that this additional evidence was crucial to the disposal of the appeal and had a direct bearing on the quantum of claim made by the assessee. The plea of the assessee which was taken before the Assessing Officer remained the same. The Assessing Officer had taken adverse note because of non-production of certain documents to support the plea and it was in these circumstances, the additional evidence was submitted before the Commissioner (Appeals). It could not be said nor was it the case of the revenue that additional evidence was not permissible at all before the first appellate authority. On the contrary, rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules permits the Commissioner (Appeals) to admit additional evidence if he finds that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on of the revenue is that the Tribunal was not justified in invoking rule 46A(4) of the Income-tax Rules and allowing additional evidence to be produced before CIT(A) for the first time. It is contended that the mere fact that the evidence sought to be produced is vital and important, does not provide substantial cause to allow its admission at the appellate stage when the evidence was available to the assessee at the initial stage and was not produced by him. In our opinion, there is no merit in this contention because rule 46A(4) provides that notwithstanding rule 46A(1), the appellate authority can permit production of documents which enable him to dispose of the appeal. In the facts of the case, the finding given by the Tribunal is that....