9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question of law based upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tek Ram (dead through LRs) Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2013 (8) TMI 459 - SUPREME COURT ] is meaningless as documents produced by the assessee in the said case as additional evidence were found to be relevant. Reference to another judgment of this Court in CIT vs. Mukta Metal Works [2011 (2) TMI 250 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] is not tenable as additional evidence produced in the aforesaid case was held to be necessary for adjudication of the pending lis. - Decided against assessee. - Income Tax Appeal No. 267 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 10-9-2015 - Rajive Bhalla And Navita Singh, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Ravi Shankar, Advocate ORDER Rajive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The application for additional evidence and the appeal have been dismissed by doubting the authenticity of the vouchers and holding that the story put-forth by the appellant appears to be an after thought. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is clearly incorrect and gives rise to the following substantial questions of law:- i Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case ITAT is justified in declining to admit the additional evidence and in declining to remand the matter to AO for verification and proper enquiry, ignoring the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tek Ram (Dead Through LRs) Vs. CIT (supra) despite the fact that appellant was earlier unable being helpless to submit the relevant vouchers before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l accompanied by an application for additional evidence by appending a large number of vouchers and pleaded that the vouchers were in possession of Shri Pawan Bansal, a Director, who had resigned on 02.01.2009. The appellant has now been able to trace these vouchers and as he was prevented by sufficient cause, the vouchers should be taken into consideration. The Tribunal has considered the application for additional evidence, the vouchers appended with the application and dismissed the appeal by holding as follows:- We have considered rival submissions. It is a fact that assessee has expressed inability to furnish any documentary evidences and primary vouchers for claiming deduction on account of development expenses before Assessing O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the absence of any signature on the vouchers on behalf of the assessee company, the genuineness of the vouchers itself is in doubt. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances above and discussion, we are of the view that the additional evidences in the shape of vouchers should not be admitted. The request of assessee for admission of additional evidence is accordingly rejected. We find no reason to accept arguments advanced by counsel for the appellant or to hold that the Tribunal has committed any error of law in dismissing the application for additional evidence as well as the appeal. The appellant could have easily told the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Ludhiana that the vouchers were i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
