Issues Involved: 1. Whether rule 46A applied to the present case. 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the view that evidence produced before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could not be admitted under rule 46A. 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,43,520 as income from undisclosed sources.
Summary:
Issue 1: Applicability of Rule 46A The Tribunal did not decide on the applicability of rule 46A. The High Court noted that rule 46A is intended to restrict the appellant from producing new evidence before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner unless specific conditions are met. However, it does not limit the powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to call for additional evidence or make further inquiries as per sub-section (4) of section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Issue 2: Justification for Not Admitting Evidence The Tribunal upheld the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision not to admit additional evidence under rule 46A, as the assessee did not produce the evidence before the Income-tax Officer and did not meet any exceptions under sub-rule (1) of rule 46A. The High Court, however, found that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should have exercised his powers under sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 250 to admit the evidence, as it was necessary to decide the genuineness of the loan. The High Court also opined that the case fell under clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of rule 46A, as the assessee had no prior occasion to collect the evidence and was not informed by the Income-tax Officer about the non-availability of the creditors.
Issue 3: Sustaining the Addition of Rs. 1,43,520 The Tribunal sustained the addition of Rs. 1,43,520 as income from undisclosed sources due to the non-availability of the creditors. The High Court declined to answer this question as a question of law but directed that the addition of Rs. 40,000 from Champaklal Dalpatrai be re-examined in light of the new evidence produced by the assessee.
Conclusion: The High Court answered question No. 3 in the negative and in favor of the assessee, indicating that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should have considered the additional evidence. Consequently, questions Nos. 1 and 2 were deemed unnecessary to answer. The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs, and the addition of Rs. 40,000 was directed to be re-examined.
9911796707
