KRISHNASAMY SAI JAGANNATHAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CNETRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI
Facts
The assessee's appeals are against a common order of the CIT(A) for assessment years 1993-94, 1995-96, and 1996-97, concerning quantum additions and penalties. The core issue revolves around the admissibility of Xerox copies of documents and affidavits, especially when the original materials are with the CBI and DRI.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the Indian Evidence Act is not strictly applicable to income tax proceedings, and amendments have made Xerox copies admissible. The lower appellate authority was incorrect in refusing to admit the affidavit solely because it was a Xerox copy. The Tribunal held that the matter should be re-examined by the Assessing Officer after considering all documents available with the CBI and DRI, giving the assessee a fair opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the lower authorities erred in not admitting Xerox copies of documents and affidavits as evidence, especially when the original documents were with the CBI/DRI. The appeals also pertain to penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunatha
PER BENCH: All these appeals consisting of quantum addition as well as penalty filed by the assessee are directed against the common order dated 31.08.2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai for the assessment years 1993-94, 1995-96 and 1996-97. 2. Since the issue raised in the appeals are similar based on the same identical facts, with the consent of the both the parties, we proceed to 2 I.T.A. Nos.1439-1444/Chny/23
hear all these appeals together and pass consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
At the outset, we note that this Tribunal, in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 1994-95 in ITA No. 1279/Mds/2003, remanded the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration vide consolidated order dated 20.07.2004, which is placed on record at page 11 of the paper book. On perusal of the same, we find that the ITAT Chennai Bench discussed the issue in detail in para 3 and directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the whole issue afresh after examining the entire documents stated to be available with CBI and DRI by giving a fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The relevant part at para 3 is reproduced herein below:
We have heard rival submissions and also perused the material placed before us. Admittedly, the lower authorities made the addition only on the ground that the assessee had not filed any material to show that the advance was given by MVR group of companies in the course of business. The case of the assessee is that the materials are available with CBI & DRI. Therefore, they cannot be produced. Now, the learned counsel for the assessee produced a Xerox copy of extracts from