TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 940X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee to file the formal petition. The Hon ble Supreme court in the case of Sambhaji and Others v. Gangabai and Others [ 2008 (11) TMI 393 - SUPREME COURT] has held that procedure cannot be a tyrant but only a servant. It is not an obstruction in the implementation of the provisions of the Act, but an aid. The procedures are handmaid and not the mistress. It is a lubricant and not a resistance. A procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory; the procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid to justice. The Hon ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Principal CIT v. Daljit Singh Sra [ 2017 (3) TMI 1258 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] has held that although the assessee did not co-operate with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to ₹ 36,05,862 paid to other referral agents. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follow: The assessee is an individual. He is engaged in the business of a direct selling agent (DSA) for various Financial Institutions / Banks in the name and style of SSBS Financial Corp. The assessee gets various loans processed for his customers and earns commission from concerned financial institutions / banks. It is stated that the financial institutions / banks give commission based on slab system (higher number of loans higher the commission). Therefore, the assessee started pooling of cases with other DSAs to enter into higher slab and get better commission payout. In these processes, the assessee had to pay commission to other DSAs f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that he could only collate the above information and other DSAs have not provided with any other details. The CIT(A)did not admit the additional documents on the ground that the assessee has not formally filed any request for admission of additional evidence and the assessee has not given any reason why the same could not be produced in proceedings before the A.O. Consequently, the disallowance of commission paid to other referral DSAs was confirmed by the CIT(A). 7. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules for admission of additional evidence. It was stated by the learned AR that in proceedings before the Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out giving an opportunity to the assessee to rectify the defect, if any. The learned Counsel submits that the procedural law should not be strictly construed and in the interest of justice and equity, the additional documents now furnished before the Tribunal should be admitted and taken on record for a proper adjudication of the case. In this context, the learned AR relied on the CBDT Circular No.14 of 1955 dated 11.04.1955 and other judicial pronouncements for the proposition that the additional documents which goes to the root of the issue and for advancement of substantial cause, ought to be admitted and taken on record for a proper adjudication of the case. 8. The learned Standing Counsel supported the orders passed by the Income Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rals made by them, their PAN and address. (ii) Copies of ledger accounts of DSAs in the books of the assessee. (iii) Copy of bank statement of the assessee highlighting the entries of payment made by the assessee to DSAs. (iv) Documents furnished before CIT(A) PAN and confirmation letter from DSA M/s.Rashmi (Prop : ACTIF Solutions) and Bank statement of DSA, Mr.Manohar B. 9.1 The CBDT in its Circular No.14 of 1955 dated 11.04.1955, has stated the officers of the department must not take advantage of ignorance of the assessee about his rights and it is their duty to assist the tax payer in every reasonable way particularly in the matter of claiming and securing reliefs. In the instant case, the CIT(A) has rejected the additiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... additional evidence would be necessary to do substantial justice in the matter. It is well settled that the procedure is handmaid for justice and should not be allowed to be choked only because of some inadvertent error or omission on the part of one of the parties to lead evidence at the appropriate stage. Once it is found that the party intending to lead evidence before the Tribunal for the first time was prevented by sufficient cause to lead such an evidence and that said evidence would have material bearing on the issue which needed to be decided by the Tribunal and ends of justice demand admission of such an evidence, the Tribunal can pass an order to that effect. 9.3 The Hon ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
