2025 (10) TMI 588

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2024] Harisankar V. Menon, J. These two Income Tax Appeals have been filed by the respective appellants, challenging the common order dated 15.04.2024 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), rejecting the appeals filed by them, challenging the finalization of assessments for the year 2017-18. 2. On 19.07.2016, in an operation at the instance of the excise officials at Muthanaga Check Post, an amount of Rs. 2,39,57,500/- was seized from the possession of three passengers - Sravan Kumar Neela, Uma Maheshwara Rao Chinni, and K. Ganesh Kumar - who were travelling in a private bus from Hyderabad to Kozhikode. The custody of the entire amount was taken over by the officials under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinaft....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Uma Maheshwara Rao Chinni also produced similar affidavits, contending that the cash actually belonged to one D. Ramesh, who entrusted the said money for the purchase of raw gold from Kerala. The source of the afore amount as regards Ramesh was also produced, along with the affidavits executed by those who advanced the amounts to Ramesh. 4. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 15.04.2024, refused to act on the additional evidence produced as above, thereby dismissing the appeals. It is in such circumstances that these appeals are instituted by the respective appellants. 5. Heard Sri. Joseph Markose, the learned senior counsel for the appellants, and Sri. Jose Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 6. The main....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to adduce evidence either on points specified by them, or not specified by them, the Tribunal, for reasons to be recorded, may allow such document to be produced or witness to be examined or affidavit to be filed or may allow such evidence to be adduced." Thus, the Tribunal requires to accept such additional evidence only in a situation where the assessee was prevented from adducing such evidence by the assessing authority. In the case at hand, as noticed earlier, though Uma Maheshwara Rao Chinni claimed that the cash actually belonged to one Ramesh, no evidence was produced. Sravan Kumar Neela did not raise any such contention. He took up a stand that he was travelling to Kerala to s....