9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 522X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal is filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961, stating that the following questions of law arise out of the order of the Tribunal dt. 28th Feb., 2003 in ITA No. 25/Nag/2001. (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in law in deciding that the learned CIT(A) ought to have exercised its powers to receive new/addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,40,000 on the basis of additional/new evidence produced by the assessee before it? 2. The assessment year involved herein is asst. yr. 1997-98. 3. The assessee is a company and it runs a Speciality Poly Trauma Hospital at Nagpur. In the assessment year in question, the AO made various additions inter aha on the ground that the assessee failed to est ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee, the Tribunal held that in the light of Rule 46A(4), the CIT(A) ought to have permitted the assessee to produce confirmation letters given by 12 unsecured creditors as the same were necessary for disposal of the appeal on merits. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the additions of Rs. 6,06,725, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. 6. The Tribunal further held that although the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time. It is contended that the mere fact that the evidence sought to be produced is vital and important, does not provide substantial cause to allow its admission at the appellate stage when the evidence was available to the assessee at the initial stage and was not produced by him. In our opinion, there is no merit in this contention because Rule 46A(4) provides that notwithstanding Rule 46A(1), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hed that no loan is taken from Mr. Dandekar and in fact the assessee is liable to pay Rs. 1,16,000 to Mr. Dandekar, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the said addition. Similarly, the assessee has established that the amount of Rs. 1,14,000 has in fact been paid towards stamp duty charges and, therefore, deletion of the said amount cannot be faulted. 10. In this view of the matter, we do not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
