2009 (10) TMI 291

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... deleted both the additions. It also cancelled the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Held that- dismiss the appeal, that as regards the deletion by the Commissioner (Appeals) after referring to the additional evidence led before him, the Tribunal had examined the matter and recorded that a remand report was duly sought and thus no prejudice was caused by considering the additional evidence. Thus the order passed by Tribunal is final and cancellation of penalty is valid.
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL and GURDEV SINGH JJ. Sanjeev Kaushik for the appellant. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by 1. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J.- This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act") aga .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n fact paid and the claim for depreciation could not be allowed as machinery was not in possession of the assessee during physical verification. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the addition in respect of receipts shown to have been made from M/s. Sahib Engineering Works but deleted the addition towards lease rent and depreciation allowance, taking into account additional evidence led by the assessee. 3. On further appeal, the Tribunal upheld the plea of the assessee in respect of amount received from M/s. Sahib Engineering Works but dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in respect of deletions in respect of lease, rent and depredation allowance. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ns cannot be held to be non-existent. The matter is in the realm of appreciation of evidence. Even if it is held that two views are possible, inference drawn by the Tribunal, being final fact finding authority, cannot be held to be perverse. 8. As regards deletion by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) after referring to additional evidence led before him, the Tribunal has examined the matter and recorded that a remand report was duly sought and thus no prejudice was caused by considering the additional evidence. There is no doubt that additional evidence has to be allowed only for the specific reason, there cannot be rigid yardstick for sufficiency or otherwise of the reason in a given case. Admittedly, the Revenue did not raise this .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X