TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... portunity but no merit in the contention of revenue found as assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in not appearing before the AO while framing the assessment under Sections 143(3) r.w.s. 144 due to confusion relating to the jurisdiction of the AO. Also the revenue was unable to substantiate on merits that the additions made in the original assessment order were justified - against revenue. - ITA No.165 of 2012 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 14-9-2012 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR. GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA JJ. Present: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the appellant-revenue. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act ) against the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r it was recorded by the CIT(A) for admitting the additional evidence? 4. Whether ITAT was correct in law in upholding the order of CIT(A) ignoring the fact that order of CIT(A) was perverse and erroneous as it has been passed by ignoring the provisions contained in Rule 46A of IT Rules by not recording the mandatory reason for admitting the additional evidence and only unilaterally relying on the verification/finding of the AO's report, while the same report of the AO emphatically point out that sufficient and reasonable opportunity has been given to the assessee for submitting the evidence hence, the merits of the case does not allow the additional evidence to be admitted? 5. Whether ITAT was correct in law in confirming the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore CIT(A) who forwarded the same to ACIT, Circle I, Ludhiana for his comments and remand report. The ACIT, Circle I, Ludhiana vide letter dated 13.10.2010 submitted reply to the effect that the application for admission of additional evidence be rejected and requested to send the comments after 31.12.2010. Again the CIT(A) vide letter dated 19.10.2010 directed the Assessing officer to send comments on additional evidence on merits after examining the books of account of the appellant. The Assessing Officer while sending the report reiterated that the application of the assessee for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (for brevity, the Rules ) deserved to be rejected. Vide order dated 3.12.2010, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income of the assessee instead of ₹ 1,38,48,123/- as has been computed by the Assessing Officer while framing assessment under section 143(3) read with section 144 of the Act. The only grievance of the revenue is that the additional evidence could not have been allowed by the CIT(A) and thus, addition which has been deleted was uncalled for. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the revenue and perusing the record, we do not find any merit in the aforesaid contention. Learned counsel for the revenue was unable to justify ex parte assessment under Section 144 of the Act except to urge a technical plea that the conditions specified in Rule 46A of the Rules were not complied with in letter and spirit while allowing permission to the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
