2013 (3) TMI 73 - HC - Income Tax

Additional evidence - Rule 46A(3) - held that - It has come on record that the documents which were filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) were already on record before the Assessing Officer which he failed to consider and, therefore, it is not a case of filing of any additional evidence but appraisal of evidence, which was already on record - the question of calling for a remand report does not arise. So far as the second contention that it was not a case of long term capital gain is concerned, we may mention here that the purchase of shares in question have not been doubted. The details of purchase of shares were already on record. Appeal against the order of ITAT dismissed - Decided in favor of revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of new evidence without a remand report from the Assessing Officer.
2. Validity of long term capital gains claimed by the assessee.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Admissibility of new evidence without a remand report
The appeal was filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, regarding the admissibility of new evidence by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) without calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. The appellant argued that the admission of new evidence without a remand report violated Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules. However, it was clarified that the documents submitted were already on record before the Assessing Officer, who failed to consider them. Therefore, it was deemed as an appraisal of existing evidence rather than introducing new evidence. The court opined that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had the authority to review such evidence without the need for a remand report, as the documents were not new and were part of the original record.

Issue 2: Validity of long term capital gains claimed by the assessee
The case pertained to the Assessment Year 2004-05, where the respondent-assessee declared long term capital gains in her income tax return. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim, treating the income from the sale of shares as undisclosed income. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal, which was upheld by the Tribunal. The Revenue contended that the long term capital gain was not valid, arguing that the shares' purchase was not in question, and the sale was considered income from undisclosed sources. However, the court found that the shares were sold through the Stock Exchange at genuine rates, with transactions verified at the Calcutta Stock Exchange. As a result, the long term capital gain was deemed legitimate. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that there were no legal flaws in the order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

In conclusion, the High Court of Allahabad upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the respondent-assessee regarding the admissibility of evidence and the validity of the long term capital gains claimed for the Assessment Year 2004-05.