KRISHNASAMY SAI JAGANNATHAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI
Facts
The appeals were filed by the assessee against a common order of the CIT(A) for assessment years 1993-94, 1995-96, and 1996-97, involving quantum additions and penalties. The Tribunal noted that a similar issue in the assessee's own case for assessment year 1994-95 was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
Held
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in not admitting Xerox copies of documents and affidavits, especially considering the amendment to the Indian Evidence Act by the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Tribunal emphasized that income tax authorities should consider such documents and, if in doubt, can ask for originals. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
Key Issues
Whether the addition and penalty were justified without examining the material available with CBI and DRI, and whether the rejection of documentary evidence in the form of Xerox copies and affidavits was proper.
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