TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 967
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u/s 153A was issued to the assessee on 21.03.2014. In response, the AR of the assessee vide letter dated 15.04.2014 sought time to file the return. In compliance to the notice u/s 153A of the Act, despite taking more time, the assessee failed to file the return. Hence a show cause notice was issued dated 09.01.15 asking the assessee as to why the provision of section 276CC of the Act should not be invoked. Ultimately on 23.11.15, the assessee filed return alongwith audit report, balance sheet, etc. In the return, the assessee declared the total return of Rs. (-) 57,15,388/- under normal provisions and Rs. (-) 62,68,633/- u/s 115JB of the Act. Statutory notice u/s 142(1) of the Act alongwith detailed questionnaire dated 16.11.15 was issued to which response was filed on behalf of the assessee. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, it is observed that the assessee had paid stamp duty penalty of Rs. 3,47,410/-; since the said payment was penal in nature, hence a sum of Rs. 3,47,410/- was disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee in view of explanation-2 section 37(1) of the Act. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was further noticed that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion that the explanation offered by the Ld. AR was not satisfactory. It was further observed that since the tax auditors certified the receipt of commission, it was required to be reflected in P & L a/c which was not done, hence the said amount was added to the total income. 10. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee wants to submit CA certificate in relation to classification of commission income of Rs. 1 crore under consultancy charges based on audited annual accounts including the ledger account. It is further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) had asked the appellant to provide the complete set of audited annual accounts. An application under Rule 29 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963 has been filed before us by the assessee seeking permission to adduce additional evidence in support of claim of assessee with respect to the said amount required to be deducted from the total income. Certain documents /copy of documents as additional evidence have been filed alongwith application. The Ld. DR submitted that no justified reason has been assigned by the assessee for not filing the additional evidence before the lower authorities, hence the application be rejec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... informed by the Income-tax Officer in the course of assessment proceedings that he was not inclined to accept the loans as genuine because of the nonavailability of the creditors, he could have tried to satisfy him about the genuineness of the loan by producing other evidence. At the time of hearing of the appeal, the appellant tried to satisfy the Appellate Assistant Commissioner about the genuineness of one of the loans by producing material which he could collect in the meantime. This case, therefore, will fall under clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of rule 46A of the Rules. In any view of the matter, we are of the opinion that in the instant case, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should have considered the evidence produced by the assessee in regard to the loan of Rs. 40,000 from Champaklal Dalpatrai. In view of the above, we answer question No. 3 in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In view of the above answer to question No. 3, questions Nos. 1 and 2 need not be answered." 14. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in ITA No. 506 of 2018, M/s. Google India Private Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, order dated 17.04.2021 has been pleased to hold that if additio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts, however, admission of additional evidence may help to pronounce its judgment in a "more satisfactory manner". b) The Appellant also relies on ruling of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Text Hundred India (P) Ltd. (351 ITR 57 (Delhi)) wherein it was held that the tribunal has the power to admit additional evidence in its discretion if it was necessary to do substantial justice. 4. By way of this application, the Appellant seeks the permission of the Hon'ble Bench under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules to place on record additional evidence. 5. In the event the Hon'ble Tribunal were to permit the additional evidence no harm or prejudice to the Revenue will be caused to the Revenue; on the contrary grave hardship and prejudice would be caused to the Appellant, if the application for additional evidence were to be rejected. 6. In the circumstances, it is hereby prayed that additional evidence in the form of annual accounts be accepted. 16. It is thus evident from the contents of the application that the assessee/appellant could not produce these documents under the impression that the submission made in that regard would be con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A). 18. Rule 30 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 provides as under: "Mode of taking additional evidence: - 30. Such document may be produced or such witness examined or such evidence adduced either before the Tribunal or before such income-tax authority as the Tribunal may direct." 19. In view of the provisions of the Rule 30 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 and in the given facts and circumstances, the case is restored to the file of the Ld. AO who shall consider the additional evidence to be filed by the assessee/appellant before the Ld. AO within the period of 60 days from this order. 20. For the above reasons, the ground no. 1 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Ground no. 2 21. It pertains to addition of Rs. 3, 47,410/- on account of disallowance of the said amount having been paid as stamp duty penalty. The Ld. AO has disallowed the said amount on the following observations in para no. 6 of his order:- 6. During the course of assessment proceedings it is observed from the ledger of Stamp duty penalty (Tardeo), produced the assessee had paid stamp duty penalty of Rs. 3, 47,410/-. Since this payment is penal in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amount was not debited to P&L a/c but was added to Work-in-Progress (WIP). I am unable to accept this contention of the appellant for various reasons. No evidence has been brought before me or that it was demonstrated before the AO has been shown to me. The appellant has only given select pages of ledgers / financials. Hence, this argument is not acceptable. Even if it were true, still the same would not be allowable as deduction, for what cannot be allowed directly cannot be allowed indirectly. This is in line with various decisions of Hon. Supreme Court. For instance, in the case of Jagir Singh vs Ranbir Singh on 8 November, 1978, AIR 1979 SC 381, the Hon'ble SC held as under: "What may not be done directly cannot be allowed to be done indirectly, that would be an evasion of the statute. It is a "well-known principle of law that the provisions of an Act of Parliament shall not be evaded by shift or contrivance" (per Abbott G.J. in Fox v. Bishop of Chester (1824) 2 B & C 635 "To carry out effectually the object of a Statute, it must be construed as to defeat all attempts to do, or avoid doing, in an indirect or circuitous manner that which it has prohibited or enjoined" (Maxwe....