TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (2) TMI 191
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the predecessor CIT(A) and in itself not considering it?" 2. The Assessment Year is 1991-92, the relevant accounting period being Financial Year ended on 31.03.1991. The assessee, a Private Limited Company, filed return of income on 30.12.1991 declaring total income of Rs.72,900/-. The Assessing Officer made addition on account of unexplained share capital to the tune of Rs.18,40,200/-, disallowed the consultation fees of Rs.75,000/-, and disallowed claim u/s.80-I of the Act. 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who partly allowed the appeal on one another ground but confirmed the Assessment Order in relation to the aforesaid three items by refusing to admit additional evidence in the following terms : "3. Before me, the appellant has, furnished the above list showing the names and addresses, and P.A. Numbers of these share-holders and contended that above addition should be deleted and addition, if any, should be considered in the hands of individual share-holders of company. 4. Since the list of the share-holders now being furnished to me was in the nature of an additional evidence, not submitted before the Assessing Officer, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ery lightly and made no compliance. The assessee thus showed no respect for law. It is an admitted fact that the evidence in respect of the share capital as detailed supra was furnished for the first time before the CIT(A) vide letter dt. 28/12/93 (page 28 of the paper book). We have gone through this letter and find that the assessee submitted 'A detailed chart is enclosed to show what happened on various dates and the assessee remained under the impression that since it was not a time-barring assessment, the assessment would not be finalised'. This shows that the assessee took the whole thing very lightly and rather dictated to the Assessing Officer to take up assessment proceedings at their convenience as it was not getting time barred. The fact of the matter is that the Assessing Officer gave a number of opportunities to the assessee and the assessee not only not availed of these opportunities but showed great dis-respect to the process of law. Under the circumstances the CIT (A) was justified in not admitting the evidence furnished before him for the first time when it was not furnished before the Assessing Officer, without any reasonable cause. Before us a plea has been raise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... justice an opportunity was required to be granted to the assessee to produce relevant material on record before any addition/ disallowance could be made and all the authorities had erred in law in not granting such an opportunity. Therefore, the High Court should send the matter back to the Tribunal with a direction to admit additional evidence and thereafter decide the merits of the case, viz. whether any addition/disallowance was permissible. In support of the submissions made reliance has been placed on decision of High Court of Orissa in case of Patny & Co. CIT, (1955) 28 ITR 414 as well as decision of this High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers' Union Ltd., (1979) 116 ITR 319 to point out that in both the decisions the Supreme Court decision in case of CIT Vs. Ogale Glass Works Ltd., (1954) 25 ITR 529 was relied upon enabling the High Court to consider the evidence which was already available on record of the Income Tax Authorities. 7. It was further submitted that the submissions made are supported by communication dated 20.3.1993, which was the assessee's letter addressed to the Assessing Officer in response to letter dated 19.3.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plea of the assessee for production of additional evidence because, according to the Tribunal Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly come to the conclusion that sufficient opportunities had been granted to the assessee by the Assessing Officer. In fact the finding of the Tribunal on this ground is that the assessee took the entire matter very lightly and asked the Assessing Officer to take up the assessment proceedings at the convenience of the assessee (or may be the Chartered Accountant of the assessee) as pleaded, because the assessment was not getting time barred. If both the Appellate Authorities have concurrently come to the conclusion that sufficient opportunities were granted to the assessee it is not possible to go behind the said findings which are primarily based on appreciation of evidence on record. 11. Similarly so far as admitting additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules is concerned the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the benefit under the said Rule is not available to a person who is negligent, non-cooperative and recalcitrant; and the Tribunal is not required to give another chance or opportunity to a person to cover up its own lapses. Even on thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be recorded, the Tribunal may allow the production of additional evidence. We are not concerned in the present case with a case falling in the third category and we need to say no more about it. Since the provisions of the said Rule are in pari materia with the provisions of order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, we may refer to some of the decided cases relating to Order 41, Rule 27(1)(b) C.P.C. in order to appreciate the nature and ambit of the power conferred under Rule 29 upon the Tribunal in so far as the first two categories of cases are concerned". 14. In so far as the said decision is concerned the Court was not called upon to consider whether the case fell within the third category of exception, viz. when the Income Tax Authorities have decided the case without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to adduce evidence. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the said decision is confined to the first two categories of exceptions as stated by the High Court. Though the learned Advocate for the applicant-assessee submitted that the case of the assessee was also governed by the first two exceptions when one reads submissions made before the Tribunal and takin....