2006 (1) TMI 105 - HC - Income Tax

Additional evidence opportunity to assessee - It is manifestly clear from the order of the Commissioner that the additional evidence adduced by the assessee before him was entertained and its copies were given to the Assessing Officer for his comments though ultimately the Commissioner did not find any substance in the appeals. It cannot therefore be said that the Commissioner did not entertain the additional evidence as is being pleaded now. - In that view of the matter furnishing of the same evidence before the Tribunal is not tantamount to additional evidence within the meaning of rule 29 - As regards the question whether in a given case sufficient opportunity had been granted to an assessee or not is a pure question of fact. - Tribunal has noticed that since the assessments were getting barred by limitation by March 31 asking the assessee to meet the case against them on two dates in the last week of March itself was not sufficient opportunity. The finding of the Tribunal is based on appreciation of the material placed before it and therefore the question proposed cannot be said to be even a question of law.

Summary

Issues:
- Admissibility of additional evidence and granting relief to the assessee
- Opportunity for cross-examination of evidence by the assessee
- Determination of written down value of depreciable assets

Admissibility of Additional Evidence and Granting Relief to the Assessee:
The Revenue filed appeals against the orders of the Tribunal regarding the admission of additional evidence and granting relief to the assessee. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in admitting evidence without following the procedure under rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. The Tribunal had directed the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation on assets leased to specific entities but remanded the matter for other assets. The court observed that the Commissioner had entertained additional evidence submitted by the assessee, which was later provided to the Assessing Officer for comments. The court found no violation of rule 29 as the Commissioner had considered the evidence before. The court held that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order regarding the admission of additional evidence.

Opportunity for Cross-Examination of Evidence by the Assessee:
The Revenue argued that the assessee was not granted sufficient opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The Tribunal noted that providing only two dates for the assessee to respond, especially when assessments were nearing the limitation period, was inadequate. The court deemed the issue of whether sufficient opportunity was granted as a question of fact, based on the Tribunal's assessment of the situation. The court concluded that this matter did not amount to a question of law.

Determination of Written Down Value of Depreciable Assets:
The Revenue raised a question regarding the determination of the written down value of assets under Explanation 3 to section 43(6) of the Act. However, the court found that this specific plea was not presented before the Tribunal. Consequently, the court stated that the question raised by the Revenue did not arise from the Tribunal's order. The court declined to entertain the appeals, emphasizing that no substantial question of law emerged from the Tribunal's decision.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeals by the Revenue, stating that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's orders. The court found no violation of rules in admitting additional evidence, considered the adequacy of opportunity for cross-examination as a factual matter, and noted the absence of a specific plea regarding the determination of the written down value of assets.