Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (3) TMI 960

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Income Tax vs Subbu Shashank (2010 (8) TMI 70 - MADRAS HIGH COURT) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case in favour of the assessee on the issue of admissibility of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Rules. - Assessing Officer did not provide an opportunity of hearing for the assessee and the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause from filing relevant details, books and other record before the Assessing Officer to support its claim of expenses and other deduction. At the same time, we also hold that the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) rejected the application of the assessee filed under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules on unjustified and incorrect grounds and observations and findings of Commissione .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the books and records in view of their seizure by the financial institutions and accordingly the order dated passed u/s 144 of the Act is bad in law in as much as the Appellant Company was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the various details of the various expenses before the Ld Assessing Officer. (2) That the order dated 31-07-2012 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) XXI, New Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified in rejecting the plea of admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A he Income-tax Rules, 1962 produced by the Appellant Company during the course of the appellate proceedings. 3. We have heard rival arguments of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tional Police Station dated 14.12.2009 and other details pertaining to manufacturing expenses, administrative expenses, selling expenses, financial expenses, other expenses and details of purchases. 4. Replying to the above, ld. DR submitted that since the assessee is not cooperating during the assessment proceedings and not submitting the required details and evidence to support its claim, the Assessing Officer has no alternative but to complete assessment proceedings u/s 144 of the Act to abide the limitation period provided for assessment proceedings under the provisions of the Act. The DR further contended that as per Rule 46 of the Income Tax Rules, the assessee is prevented to file any additional evidence before the Commissioner of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rds and the books of accounts of the assessee company for the AY under consideration were not in its possession because the premises of the assessee was seized by the State Bank of India and as such the inability to file the same before the Assessing Officer was due to a sufficient cause and the admission of additional evidence is not going to prejudice the interest of the revenue in any manner. The application of the assessee filed under Rule 46A of the Rules has been rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) by following decision of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Subbu Shashank reported at 327 ITR 577 (Madras) wherein it was held that the duty is cast upon the assessee to produce all evidence, b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ks of accounts before the Assessing Officer which was submitted before the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) during the first appellate proceedings with an application under Rule 46A of the Rules but the same was rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) on wrong premise. On a careful reading of the decision of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Subbu Shashank (supra) and other relevant decisions in the light of provisions of Rule 46A of the Rules, we clearly observe that the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) misunderstood the ratio of these decisions and we respectfully hold that the ratio of this decision of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Subbu Shashank (supra) is squ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates