TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 795X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... page 23 of the paper book in which the assessee agreed to include the amount of ₹ 5,24,000/- in his income and to pay the tax on the same. The addition was, therefore, made on agreed basis when assessee was cornered by the Assessing Officer to explain the genuineness of the credit in the matter and assessee failed to prove genuine credit/liability in books of account. There is no question of assessee surrendering the amount in question voluntarily. In the present case, at the assessment stage as well as at the penalty proceedings, the assessee has failed to explain the genuineness of the credits in the matter. Whatever explanation was filed, was not substantiated through any evidence or material on record. Thus, assessee failed to ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red in ignoring the various judicial record, orders and copy of complaints which clearly reflects the liability of the creditors? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the findings arrived at by the Tribunal are perverse, in as much as no reasonable person correctly informed of the provisions of law would come to such a conclusion? 5. Whether the Tribunal has erred in law by wrongly applying the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mac Data 358 ITR 593 (SC) which is distinguishable on facts and not universally applicable? 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The appellant-assessee is proprietor of M/s Jasbir Singh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer imposed penalty amounting to ₹ 1,42,942/- vide order dated 26.9.2009, Annexure A.2. The appellant challenged the said order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. Vide order dated 19.10.2010, Annexure P.3, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant also filed an application dated 14.6.2011 under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 (in short, the Rules ) for submitting certain documents as additional evidence. According to the appellant, he could not produce the evidence earlier before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) since he was in jail on account of vario ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lained, false and bogus in the books of account of the assessee. The addition was made when the assessee was cornered by the Assessing Officer to explain the genuineness of the credit that he had surrendered the amount of ₹ 5,24,000/- during assessment proceedings. It was recorded that the assessee failed to explain the genuine credits/liability in the books of account and furnished inaccurate particulars of income so as to invite levy of the penalty. The relevant findings recorded by the Tribunal read thus:- 7. We have heard learned representatives of both the parties, perused the material available on record and considered the findings of the authorities below. The assessee has filed application under rule 29 of the ITAT Rules ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the creditor, their credit worthiness and genuineness of the transaction in the matter. Since assessee failed to file even the confirmation form these parties, therefore, these documents now sought to be admitted, are not relevant to the matter in issue and therefore, same may be rejected. 8. After reconsidering rival submissions, we do not find any justification to admit the above additional evidences filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on 22.12.2008. Some of the documents sought to be admitted are prior to passing of the assessment order as noted above. No reasons have been explained why the same were not filed before the authorities below. The learned counsel for the assessee merely explained th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed before the authorities below despite some of the documents are prior to passing of the assessment order. Even the application for admission of additional evidence has been filed in the paper book dated 14.6.23011 i.e. after three years of passing of the assessment order. The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Jawahar Lal Jain, HUF vs. CIT 370 ITR 712 held that No satisfactory explanation had been furnished to demonstrate why the material sought to be produced now could not be produced earlier. Therefore, Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application for admission of additional evidence filed by the assessee. 9 to 12. xxxxxxxxx 13. We had considered rival submissions. The Assessing Officer asked ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
