9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shing of the same evidence before the Tribunal is not tantamount to additional evidence within the meaning of rule 29 - As regards the question, whether in a given case, sufficient opportunity had been granted to an assessee or not is a pure question of fact. - Tribunal has noticed that since the assessments were getting barred by limitation by March 31, asking the assessee to meet the case against them on two dates in the last week of March itself was not sufficient opportunity. The finding of the Tribunal is based on appreciation of the material placed before it and therefore the question proposed cannot be said to be even a question of law. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" The respondent-assessee is a banking company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. In the return of income for the relevant assessment years, the assessee claimed depreciation on the assets, leased out by it to the Punjab State Electricity Board (for short "PSEB"), Nagpur Alloys Castings Ltd. (for short, "NACAST"), and various other concerns. In the case of PSEB and NACAST, the assets in question were purchased by the assessee from them and leased out on lease rental, as per the terms of the lease deeds. However, in relation to other concerns, the assets were purchased from third parties and leased out to the lessees. During the course of assessment proceedings for the said assessment years, the Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected the Assessing Officer to allow it but in respect of other assets, it has remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer with a direction to reframe the assessment in accordance with law after allowing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the persons, on whose statements reliance had been placed. We have heard Mr. D.S. Patwalia, learned counsel for the Revenue, and Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned counsel for the assessee. The main thrust of Mr. Patwalia's arguments is that the Tribunal has erred in entertaining additional evidence, furnished by the assessee before it, without following the procedure laid down in rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 (for short "the Rules"). It is asserted that the Tribunal has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufficient opportunity had been granted to an assessee or not is a pure question of fact. In this regard, the Tribunal has noticed that since the assessments were getting barred by limitation by March 31, asking the assessee to meet the case against them on two dates in the last week of March itself was not sufficient opportunity. The finding of the Tribunal is based on appreciation of the material placed before it and therefore the question proposed cannot be said to be even a question of law. Turning to the third question, namely, the determination of written down value of the assets in question, in accordance with Explanation 3 to section 43(6) of the Act, we find that no such plea was raised before the Tribunal. Hence, the question soug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
