2017 (5) TMI 1780

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT was right and justified in law in holding the assessment as null and void despite the fact that notice u/s 143(2) was issued in time on 6.8.1997 and there were circumstantial evidences to prove that the said notice was served within the limitation prescribed by the Act? 2. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT was right and justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act which was introduced in the grab of bogus advances received from the customers and surrendered by the A/R of the assessee vide letter dt. 17.3.1999 (exhibit-2), on the ground that surrenders made by the A/R cannot be admitted. 3. Whether under t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ee, the Department cannot admit such surrenders signed by the Consultant and that too in the absence of any specific power of attorney given to such Consultants. Moreover, the admissions made cannot be held to be conclusive in view of Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Vs. State of Kerala, 91 ITR 18. The assessee has already declared the said amount as income in the following year and therefore, the assessee cannot be taxed in the impugned year. There is no findings by the AO that the assessee has earned the said amount from undisclosed sources and no material has been brought on record to this effect. The assessee has received the advances which have been used in the usual course of business and no def....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t raised at a lower forum but the discretion to do so has to be exercised in the interest of justice in the facts and circumstances and not mechanically. Normally a question of fact may not be allowed to be raised for the first time as it may prejudice the other side. If such question is raised at the earliest opportunity, the orther side can lead evidence which it may not be able to do if such a question is raised for the first time before the appellate authority. Of course, there can be no total bar on such question being allowed, if interest of justice so requires. In National Thermal's case (supra) it has not been laid down that in every case a question of fact can be mechanically allowed to be raised for the first time. The Madhya Prad....