TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d does not apply in each and every case. Assessee had sufficient time from 1.9.2009 to 27.12.2010 to produce on record all relevant material. Since assessee had availed sufficient opportunities in course of ‘regular’ assessment which also stands corroborated by remand report, no material prejudice has been caused to its interest. No fault with order under challenge - CIT(A) rightly rejected prayer for admission of additional evidence raised by assessee – Decided against assessee. - ITA No.1359/Mds/2013 - - - Dated:- 8-10-2013 - O K Narayanan And S S Godara, JJ. For the Appellant : Dr Anita Sumanth, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri S Das Gupta, Jt. CIT ORDER:- PER : S S Godara The instant appeal and the stay petition hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and taxes payable addition of Rs. 7,28,910/- also stood disallowed u/s 43B of the Act. In this manner, the income was assessed as Rs. 2,46,44,911/-. 4. Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal. In the course thereof, it chose to file a petition dated 19.4.2013 under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules for permission to file additional evidence as under: "In accordance with the provisions of Rule 46A of the Act and interests of justice, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may thus be pleased to admit the following as additional documents, in so far as the documents are vital to substantiate the claims made by the appellant.(i) Approval Certificate from Government of India as a 100% Export Oriented Unit. (Annexure-1)(ii) Bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ward the same to the Assessing Authority and obtain a remand report thereupon;(iii) adjudicate upon the above; (iv) pass any other order that may be necessary in the circumstances of the case and render justice It is to be seen from the case file that in the order under challenge dated 29.4.2013 that the CIT(A) has not only rejected the assessee s petition aforesaid seeking admission of additional evidence, but also he has dismissed the main appeal itself. On merits, he has observed that despite availing seven opportunities in the lower appellate proceedings, the assessee had not made any submissions. In this manner, the additions made by the Assessing Officer stand affirmed by the ld. CIT(A).This leaves the assessee aggrieved. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Thereafter, in lower appellate proceedings, the assessee chose to file the aforesaid petition seeking permission to file additional evidence. A perusal of the contents thereof makes it clear that the only reason pleaded was that the Assessing Officer never sought the concerned documents and no opportunity had been granted in the course of regular assessment. The CIT(A) sought a remand report from the Assessing Officer qua admission of the additional evidence. Therein, the Assessing Officer clarified that the assessee had, in fact, availed seven adjournments from 1.9.2009 to 24.12.2010. In view thereof, the CIT(A) has turned down the petition. Though in the hearing before us the assessee has very strongly emphasized that the documents co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der, the assessee had sufficient time from 1.9.2009 to 27.12.2010 to produce on record all relevant material. It transpires to us from the assessment order that the Assessing Officer had issued a notice u/s 143(2) on 24.8.2009. Before us, the assessee has not been able to controvert the aforesaid observations as to how the same are contrary to record. In this situation, we hold that since the assessee had availed sufficient opportunities in the course of regular assessment which also stands corroborated by the remand report, no material prejudice has been caused to its interest. We make it clear that it is not in each and every case that violation of principles of natural justice entitle an assessee for relief. The same is only applicable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
