9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2003 (6) TMI 12 - HC - Income TaxPower of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to receive additional evidence - Assessing Officer was of the view that there is no evidence of the identity and capacity of the creditors and the genuineness of the loan transactions and hence made an addition u/s 68 - In the appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) the assessee had produced two confirmation letters which were rejected by the CIT (Appeals) - Neither the Assessing Officer, nor the first appellate authority had any case that the assessee was given several opportunities to produce the confirmatory letters and that the assessee did not avail of the said opportunity by obtaining and producing the confirmatory letters from the two persons Thus, CIT(A) was not justified in refusing to admit additional evidence Further held that processing charges received will not constitute part of the export turnover since only sale proceeds of goods or merchandise alone will form part of the turnover
Issues Involved:
1. Power of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to receive additional evidence under Rule 46A. 2. Inclusion of processing charges in the "export turnover" for the purpose of computation of relief under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Power of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to receive additional evidence under Rule 46A: The first four questions pertain to the authority of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to admit additional evidence. The respondent/assessee had shown loans in his accounts, which the Assessing Officer disallowed due to the absence of confirmation letters from the creditors, leading to an addition under section 68 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee produced two confirmation letters during the appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who rejected them citing Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, as the case did not fall under any exceptional circumstances mentioned therein. However, the Tribunal overruled this, directing the Assessing Officer to examine the creditors' creditworthiness. The Tribunal's decision was challenged on the grounds that Rule 46A restricts the production of additional evidence unless under specified circumstances. The High Court observed that Rule 46A(1) restricts the production of new evidence unless: - The Assessing Officer refused to admit evidence that should have been admitted. - The appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence. - The appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing relevant evidence before the Assessing Officer. Despite the case not fitting these exceptions, Rule 46A(4) allows the Commissioner to direct the production of any document or examination of any witness to dispose of the appeal or for any substantial cause, including the enhancement of assessment or penalty. This provision preserves the Commissioner's power to accept additional evidence, aligning with section 250 of the Income-tax Act. The High Court referenced decisions from Allahabad and Bombay High Courts, which clarified that Rule 46A aims to ensure evidence is primarily presented before the Assessing Officer but does not limit the Commissioner's power to call for additional evidence if necessary. The Tribunal's direction to the Assessing Officer was thus justified, as the Commissioner should have considered the confirmatory letters to ascertain the creditors' identity and creditworthiness. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, answering questions 1 to 4 in favor of the assessee. 2. Inclusion of processing charges in the "export turnover" for the purpose of computation of relief under section 80HHC: Question 5 concerns whether processing charges received by the assessee should be included in the "export turnover" for computing relief under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer included these charges in the total turnover, a decision upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). However, the Tribunal, relying on its earlier decisions, excluded processing charges from the "total turnover," asserting that only sale proceeds of goods or merchandise should be included. The High Court referenced its judgment in CIT v. K. Rajendranathan Nair [2004] 265 ITR 35 (Ker), which held that processing charges do not form part of the export turnover. Consequently, the High Court answered question 5 in favor of the assessee, excluding processing charges from the "total turnover." Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the income-tax appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee on both issues.
|
