9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issed - 2364 OF 2010 - - - Dated:- 1-2-2011 - J.P. DEVADHAR AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. B.L. Gandhi, S.A. Jabbar and K.C. Pandey for the Petitioner. Ms. Suchitra Kamble for the Respondent. JUDGMENT J.P. Devadhar, J. This petition is filed to challenge the assessment order passed on 29-12-2009 under section 143(3) read with section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act and also order passed by the Tribunal on 13th Aug, 2010 thereby rejecting the miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner. 2. In the original assessment order passed for the assessment year 1998-99 additions to the extent of Rs. 77 lakhs were made on account of the failure on the part of the assessee to produce confirmation letters relating to loans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al rejected the miscellaneous application on the ground that it has no power to review its order dated 13-5-2008 so as to allow additional evidence received after the disposal of the appeal on 13-8-2008. The present writ petition is filed to challenge the order dated 29-8-2009 as well as the order of the Tribunal dated 13-8-2008 rejecting the miscellaneous application. 5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that once the matter was remanded, the adjudicating authority ought to have permitted all additional evidence, whether received before or after the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. Since the Assessing Officer erroneously declined to consider the additional evidence gathered after the disposal of the appeal, the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elate to the review power of the Civil Courts under the provisions of the CPC. No such provisions are there in the Income-tax Act. Hence, both the aforesaid decisions have no relevance to the facts of the present case. 9. Similarly, reliance placed on the decisions of this Court in the case of Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT [1998] 231 ITR 1/100 Taxman 404 and Sushila Shantilal Jhaveri v. Union of India [2006] 286 ITR 428/157 Taxman 58 are also misplaced, because, in both the aforesaid cases, the issue was regarding allowability of the additional evidence before the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal and not after the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. Therefore, these two decisions also do not support the case of the petitioner. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
