9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A" Bench, dated October 14, 2003, passed in I.T. (SS) A. No. 193/Mds/1997. As against the said order, the Revenue raises the following substantial questions of law for consideration : "1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had enough material to hold and was right in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer ? 2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in ignoring the massive volume of evidence and findings based thereon put forward by the Assessing Officer ? 3. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the additions made of deposits/properties in the name of benamis on the ground that such properties are not in the name of the assessee ?" 2. In the appeal filed by the assessee, the following substantial questions of law have been raised for consideration : "1. Whether in the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment under section 158BA is not confined to income disclosed by materials gathered during the search under section 132 and the Income-tax Officer was entitled to make further investigation and collect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld car 1,15,000 (x) Fire-arm 1,00,000 (xi) Blank promissory notes 10,00,000 Total of A 43,50,184 (B) Addition on the basis of materials seized, but relating to other persons ( i) Deposit in the name of Shri K. Ramakrishnan (IOB) 7,01,961 Total of B 7,01,961 (C) Additions based on post-search enquiries (i) Deposits with Bank of Baroda 49,90,000 (ii) Interest thereon 26,070 (iii) Deposit in the name of Paramasivam and Periyakal 40,00,000 (iv) Deposit in the name of Palaniammal 11,33,814 Rs. Rs. (v) Deposit in the name of Chittibabu 34,34,894 (vi) Deposit in the name of P. Krishnan 53,86,498 (vii) Deposit in the name of K. Ramakrishnan 54,93,133 (viii) Deposit in other SB accounts 32,75,252 (ix) Deposit in the name of G. Malliga 12,47,380 (x) Deposit in the name of Siranjeevi 29,392 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble for disposal. These documents were admitted and considered by the Tribunal and ultimately passed the impugned order confirming and deleting certain additions. The relevant paragraphs 40 to 45 read as under : "40. As seen from the above paragraphs, we have considered each and every addition made by the Assessing Officer by arranging these items under convenient groups and heads reflected in the tables given in the paragraphs above. We have confirmed five additions under different heads and have deleted all other items included by the Assessing Officer in computing the undisclosed income. The following items are confirmed : Rs. (i) Jewellery 4,68,335 ( ii) Fire-arm 68,000 ( iii) Promissory notes 10,00,000 ( iv) Bank of Baroda deposits 49,90,000 ( v) Interest due thereon 26,070 65,52,405 41. While completing the assessment, it is seen that the Assessing Officer has given the following deductions : Rs. 80L 53,684 Standard deductions 67,369 Salary available 2,24,600 Agricultural income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the application filed by the assessee to let in additional evidence by filing certain documents. In fact, in the written statement, the Revenue had only stated that they leave the issue to the decision of the Tribunal. The Tribunal also had found that these documents were not controverted by the Revenue and, therefore, they were admitted. In these circumstances, it is not open to the Revenue to canvass the said point before this court, particularly when no substantial question of law was raised in this regard. As far as the second contention of the Revenue is concerned, the learned senior counsel would submit that at the time of hearing, sufficient opportunity was given for the Revenue to controvert the documents. Nevertheless, the documents which were filed before the Tribunal were not controverted and, therefore, the Tribunal had chosen to decide the appeal by placing reliance on those documents. In so far as the last contention is concerned, the learned senior counsel would argue that the Tribunal had properly appreciated the documents with reference to the order of the Assessing Officer. As far as the order of the Tribunal in confirming certain additions, which have not been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Ltd. (No. 2) v. CIT [1990] 186 ITR 313 (Mad), the said principle was reiterated by this court. 12. That apart, rule 18(4) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules is also referable. That rule provides that if any party desires to file additional evidence, then the same shall be filed by way of a separate paper book containing such particulars as are referred to in sub-rule (3) accompanied by an application stating the reasons for filing such additional evidence. If rule 18(4) is read with rule 29, there cannot be any difficulty in holding that in terms of rule 29, an additional evidence can also be produced by the asses- see on an application, provided the Tribunal should satisfy as to the reasons before entertaining such additional evidence and the Tribunal should also afford sufficient opportunity to the Revenue to rebut those additional evidence. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the Revenue that the Tribunal ought not to have entertained additional evidence at the instance of the assessee is not well-founded. That apart, there was no specific objection raised by the Revenue at the time when the application was filed and the Revenue, in fact, had allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nment is produced as an additional evidence, the Tribunal could be justified in considering the said document by itself and decide the case. On the other hand, if the document is such that requiring a detailed consideration and is disputed or even is liable to be disputed, the Tribunal shall adopt the second option by remitting the matter to the Assessing Officer to find out the veracity/genuineness of the document and thereafter consider the same to pass final orders. 16. In the given facts of the case, being a block assessment, and in the absence of any appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Tribunal is considered to be the first appellate authority. It is true that before the documents filed by way of additional evidence were considered, the Revenue had the opportunity to refute those documents. Nevertheless, in terms of rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, a provision of opportunity is contemplated and, in our opinion, such opportunity shall be given to the Assessing Officer. Rebuttal must be only by the Assessing Officer, who will be in a better position to verify the genuineness of those documents and accordingly, he may accept or may not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rms 1,00,000 32,000 8 10 Promissory note for value 10,00,000 9 Claim by the assessee of cash left by deceased father Rejected in the assessment order Rejected by the Tribunal 10 Account in Bank of Baroda, Dindigul in the name of Rajendran, Selvam and Thangavelu outsiders 49,90,000 11 Deposits in the name of Paramasivam and Periyakka father and mother of the assessee 40,00,000 40,00,000 12 Deposit in the name of Selvi Palaniammal 11,12,000 11,12,000 13 Fixed deposits in the name of A. A. Govindarajan and A. G. Chittibabu father-in-law and brother-in-law of the assessee 34,34,894 34,34,894 (1) (2) (3) (4) 14 Deposits in the name of P. Krishnan 53,86,498 53,86,498 15 Deposits in the name of K. Rama-krishnan brother of the assessee 54,93,133 54,93,133 16 Credits in the bank account of the assessee 32,75,352 32,75,352 17 Deposits in the name of Mallika Krishnan wife of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
