Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2007 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (3) TMI 292 - AT - Income TaxProvisions of section 250 - addition on account of freight receipts - CIT deleted the additions made by the learned Assessing Officer based on the gross amounts shown in the TDS certificates issued by M/s. Ramco Industries Ltd. - HELD THAT:- In the instant case the entire additional evidence has come on the record of the first appellate authority because the first appellate authority decided to examine the facts of the case in depth and adjudicate upon the matter on the basis of evidence and material thus gathered. The learned CIT(A) was empowered to do so under the provisions of section 250(4). The results of enquiry conducted by him could either go to further cement the case made out by the Assessing Officer or to help out the assessee against the findings of the Assessing Officer. The mere fact that the results of the enquiries thus conducted supported the case of the assessee and not that of revenue has no bearing on the jurisdiction and powers of the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) could have confronted the Assessing Officer with the evidence thus received and the material thus gathered and allow the Assessing Officer to have his say in the matter and perhaps had he done so this dispute would not have arisen. But we do not see any requirement in law that the first appellate authority should invariably consult or confront the Assessing Officer every time an additional evidence that was not before the Assessing Officer comes on the record of the first appellate authority. Where the additional evidence is obtained by the first appellate authority on its own motion, there is no requirement in law to consult/confront the Assessing Officer with such additional evidence. There may be cases where additional evidence is admitted by the first appellate authority on a request or application being made by the assessee. In such cases sub-rule (2) of rule 46A requires the first appellate authority to allow the Assessing Officer a further opportunity to rebut the fresh evidence filed by the assessee. Even that requirement cannot be said to be a rule of universal application. If the additional evidence furnished by the assessee before the appellate authority is in the nature of clinching evidence leaving no further room for any doubt or controversy in such a case no useful purpose would be served on performing the ritual of forwarding the evidence/material to the Assessing Officer and obtain his report. In such exceptional circumstances, the requirement of sub-rule (3) may be dispensed with. Thus, we see no infirmity in the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) who has taken pains to examine the issue before him comprehensively and arrive at a correct finding of fact and should be congratulated for having done so. We therefore uphold his order and dismiss these three appeals filed by the revenue.
|