9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Karnal dated 5.4.2016 for assessment year 2008-09, challenging the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 2. During the assessment proceedings, a disallowance of Rs.6,42,870/- was made out of the claim of commission paid by the assessee. The CIT (Appeals) as well the I.T.A.T. confirmed the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ince the assessee was under bonafide belief that since the evidences have been filed before the CIT (Appeals), therefore, there is no need to file the same in the penalty proceedings. The learned D.R., however, submitted that same point was raised before the Tribunal, in which the assessee challenged the order of CIT (Appeals) in not considering the affidavits of nine persons filed at the appellat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l could have explained that it is not a case of levy of penalty based on the evidence on record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tek Ram Vs. CIT, 262 CTR 118 (SC) and the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mukta Metal Works, 336 ITR 555 (P&H) admitted the additional evidence being relevant and required to be looked into. The addition was made by the authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equest under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules for admission of the additional evidence. These additional evidences so admitted would have bearing on the issue and could explain the matter in issue with reference to the penalty matter. Further these additional evidences were not filed before the authorities below and Assessing Officer has not looked into the matter. Therefore, the matter shall have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
