9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 522X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble him to dispose of the appeal. In the facts of the case, the finding given by the Tribunal is that the documents produced were necessary for disposal of the appeal on merits and no question of law arises from such finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal. Additional evidence permitted to be adduced, the Tribunal had deleted this addition and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. It is admitted by counsel on both sides that on remand the addition has been deleted by the lower authorities and the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. Thus the dispute regarding deletion in the present appeal does not survive. As the assessee has established that no loan is taken from Mr. Dandekar and in fact the assessee is liable to pay, M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddition of ₹ 1,16,000 on the basis of additional/new evidence produced by the assessee before it? (v) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,40,000 on the basis of additional/new evidence produced by the assessee before it? 2. The assessment year involved herein is asst. yr. 1997-98. 3. The assessee is a company and it runs a Speciality Poly Trauma Hospital at Nagpur. In the assessment year in question, the AO made various additions inter aha on the ground that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the loan transaction between the assessee and various creditors and also the payments made to SICOM towards the paym ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to SICOM for processing loan of ₹ 70,00,000 and the Collector of Stamps had endorsed the same. 7. Challenging the aforesaid order, the present appeal is being filed by the Revenue. The first contention of the Revenue is that the Tribunal was not justified in invoking Rule 46A(4) of the IT Rules and allowing additional evidence to be produce before CIT(A) for the first time. It is contended that the mere fact that the evidence sought to be produced is vital and important, does not provide substantial cause to allow its admission at the appellate stage when the evidence was available to the assessee at the initial stage and was not produced by him. In our opinion, there is no merit in this contention because Rule 46A(4) provides th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
