2015 (6) TMI 1261
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....07.1996 and the assessment order was framed on 31.07.1997. The assessee filed an appeal before this Tribunal and this Tribunal by an order dated 14.10.2003 in I.T.(SS) A. No.193/Mds/97 had determined the taxable income at Rs. 68,98,721/- instead of Rs. 5,40,07,340/- determined by the Assessing Officer. Both, the assessee and the Department filed appeals before the High Court in Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.686 of 2005 and 2 of 2009. Referring to the judgment of the High Court, the Ld.counsel submitted that the High Court found that the Tribunal ought not have gone into the additional evidence, rather should have remitted the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer. In fact, according to the Ld. counsel, the Tribunal reduced the assessed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he direction of the High Court, according to the Ld. counsel, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not sustainable. 4. The Ld.counsel for the assessee further submitted that the Revenue seized several gold Jewellery, diamond, silver articles from the premises of the assessee during the course of search operation. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee's wife could not wear the jewels during the marriage occasion of her daughter. Even though the search took place on 17.07.1996, the proceedings could not be completed even now and the Department is not prepared to release the jewels seized from the assessee. The Ld.counsel further submitted that a direction may be issued to the Department to return the jewels seized from the prem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 11 & 12 extracted the addition made by the Assessing Officer and the deletion made by the Tribunal. The High Court came to a conclusion that the Tribunal solely placed reliance on the additional evidence filed by the assessee before the Tribunal reducing the income to Rs. 65,52,405/-. Ultimately, the High Court came to a conclusion that the Tribunal ought not to have gone into the additional evidence and rather should have remitted the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and remitted the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the documents filed by the assessee as additional evidence before this Tribunal and pass a fresh order. In fact, the High....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial Public Prosecutor for the Department, the Assessing Officer has not considered the additional evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, there is a clear violation of the direction issued by the High Court. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that when the High Court directed the Assessing Officer to consider the additional evidence, the Assessing Officer has no other option except to consider the additional evidence filed by the assessee and discuss the same in the assessment order by making a reference in respect of each and every additional evidence filed by the assessee and thereafter the Assessing Officer has to pass a speaking order. At any stretch of imagination, the Assessing Officer is not expected to ignore the directio....