Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 484 - AT - Income TaxAdmission of additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Rules, 1962 - allowing the earlier year peak while considering the computation of peak credit in respect of the impugned assessment year - Held that - So far the submission of the additional evidence are concerned, the learned D.R. even though referred to the ground of appeal could not convinced as to how the CIT(A) had admitted the additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A. Even the nature of the additional evidence was also not brought to our knowledge. In view of this fact we dismiss this ground relating to the admission of the additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A. So far as giving of the peak credit for the earlier year while working out the peak credit of the impugned assessment year in respect of the same party we noted that the AO while working out the incremental credit for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 in the aforesaid assessment year itself has allowed the credit for the preceding assessment year. Since in the impugned assessment year the AO has not considered the peak credit of A.Y. 2008-09 and taken A.Y. 2009-10 peak as first year, therefore the AO has in our view has committed a mistake. The method of computation of peak credit had even been accepted by the AO while working out the peak credit for subsequent assessment years which is apparent from para 4.1.20 of the assessment order. No illegality of infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) directing the AO to allow the credit for the peak pertaining to the earlier year, i.e. A.Y. 2008-09. Accordingly the order of the CIT(A) stand confirmed. Appeal filed by the Revenue dismissed.
Issues involved:
Admission of additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and allowing the earlier year peak credit while considering the computation of peak credit for the impugned assessment year. Detailed Analysis: 1. Admission of Additional Evidences: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A)-28, Mumbai for A.Y. 2009-10. The only issue in this appeal was the admission of additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A. The AO reopened the assessment based on information about accommodation entries. The peak credits were worked out for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12. The AO added back an amount in the impugned assessment year. The CIT(A) allowed the credit for the peak credit relating to A.Y. 2008-09, considering the peak unaccounted cash in circulation. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the ground relating to the admission of additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A as the nature of the evidence was not brought to their knowledge. 2. Earlier Year Peak Credit: The AO did not consider the peak credit of A.Y. 2008-09 while working out the peak credit for the impugned assessment year, treating A.Y. 2009-10 peak as the first year. The CIT(A) directed the AO to allow the credit for the peak of A.Y. 2008-09. The Appellate Tribunal found no illegality or infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in this regard. The method of computation of peak credit had been accepted by the AO for subsequent assessment years. Hence, the order of the CIT(A) directing the AO to allow the credit for the peak of the earlier year was confirmed. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal, upholding the order of the CIT(A) regarding the admission of additional evidences and the computation of peak credit for the impugned assessment year, including the peak credit of the earlier year.
|