2010 (9) TMI 107 - HC - Income Tax

assessee had not able to produced the relevant documents before the Assessing Officer - and not made any request under Rule 46A of the Act for admission of the said documents as additional evidence - CIT wrongly treated the papers filed by the assessee as new evidence when from the written submissions filed by the assessee - Held that - assessee Director s identity was established and the transactions were not denied, the initial burden cast on the respondentassessee stood discharged. Accordingly, the present quantum appeal, being bereft of merit, is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenging a common judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2005-2006. Quantum appeal and penalty appeal arising from a single judgment.

Analysis:

1. The first issue pertains to the challenge against the judgment and order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The respondent-assessee was alleged to have not produced relevant documents before the Assessing Officer or made any request for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Act. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) wrongly treated the documents as new evidence. It was established that the relevant papers had been filed before the Assessing Officer alongside the paper book, as per the written submissions filed by the respondent-assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

2. The second issue involves the consideration of the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal arising from the same judgment. The court found that the respondent-assessee had established the Director's identity and did not deny the transactions, thereby discharging the initial burden. Consequently, the quantum appeal was dismissed for lacking merit. As a result of not interfering in the quantum appeal, the second appeal related to the penalty was also dismissed.

3. During the hearing, the counsel for the revenue was given the opportunity to withdraw the appeals to file an application under Section 254(2) of the Act, but she declined to do so. The court upheld the findings of the Tribunal, stating that they were not disputable or perverse. The appeal paper book filed by the respondent-assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not filed along with the appeal, further supporting the Tribunal's conclusion regarding the submission of relevant documents before the Assessing Officer.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing both the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal. The court found that the respondent-assessee had fulfilled the necessary requirements and that the findings of the Tribunal were valid and supported by the evidence presented.