Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeals concerned quantum additions and penalties for assessment years 1993-94, 1995-96, and 1996-97, arising from a common order. The assessee argued that evidence was with CBI and DRI and could not be produced, and that an affidavit was rejected solely because it was a Xerox copy.
Held
The Tribunal held that income tax authorities are quasi-judicial and should consider Xerox copies of documents, especially given amendments to the Indian Evidence Act. The previous appellate authority was incorrect in refusing to admit the affidavit. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination of all documents available with the CBI and DRI, providing a fair opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether lower authorities erred in rejecting evidence and additions without examining all available materials. Whether the rejection of a Xerox copy of an affidavit was justified.
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