Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals were against a common order concerning quantum additions and penalty for assessment years 1993-94, 1995-96, and 1996-97. The issue was similar to a previous case for assessment year 1994-95 where the Tribunal had remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities made additions without examining the entire material available with CBI and DRI, and refused to admit affidavit copies. The Tribunal held that income tax authorities should consider copies of documents and that the assessee should be given a fair opportunity. Previous orders of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case directed re-examination of the issue after considering all available documents.
Key Issues
Whether the additions and penalty were justified without examining all available material from CBI and DRI, and whether copies of affidavits should be admitted as evidence.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunatha
O R D E R 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.
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 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 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