Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT

231 ITR 1High Court1998#512 most cited

What is Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT authority for?

The first appellate authority must admit additional evidence if it is necessary for determining the true state of affairs and preventing undue hardship or a failure of justice, even without a specific request and particularly when the case falls under Rule 46A(1)(c).

186

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT · Prabhavati S. Shah · admission of additional evidence · Rule 46A Income Tax Rules · CIT(A) appellate powers · Section 250 Income Tax Act · Section 251 Income Tax Act · production of additional evidence · undue hardship justice · true state of affairs · Appellate Assistant Commissioner powers

Also reported as

100 Taxmann 404

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 143(3)Section 1961)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 68Section 250Section 1962

Issues it is cited on

section 250(4)admission of additional evidencesource of sourceshell companyrule 46asection 246section 41addition under section 68principal commissioner of income-taxsection 251share application moneydocuments seized

Judgments citing Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT

Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5524/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

…ot be denied the opportunity. Similarly it was held in Dwarka Prasad VIs ITO 63 ITD 1 (TM) that additional evidence if in the interest of justice, and renders assistance to the authority in passing order, may be admitted. Other similar rulings are 68 TTJ 722, 231 ITR 1, 21 SOT ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 218,293 ITR 53, 941TD 79 etc. In view of the guidance available in the afore-cited judicial pronouncements, 1 hold that the additional evidence as mentioned in para 2.3 above are admissible u/r 46A and are taken on record. 2.4.2 Having decided the question of admission of additional evidence, now the substanti…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5492/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

…ot be denied the opportunity. Similarly it was held in Dwarka Prasad VIs ITO 63 ITD 1 (TM) that additional evidence if in the interest of justice, and renders assistance to the authority in passing order, may be admitted. Other similar rulings are 68 TTJ 722, 231 ITR 1, 21 SOT ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 218,293 ITR 53, 941TD 79 etc. In view of the guidance available in the afore-cited judicial pronouncements, 1 hold that the additional evidence as mentioned in para 2.3 above are admissible u/r 46A and are taken on record. 2.4.2 Having decided the question of admission of additional evidence, now the substanti…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5491/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

…ot be denied the opportunity. Similarly it was held in Dwarka Prasad VIs ITO 63 ITD 1 (TM) that additional evidence if in the interest of justice, and renders assistance to the authority in passing order, may be admitted. Other similar rulings are 68 TTJ 722, 231 ITR 1, 21 SOT ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 218,293 ITR 53, 941TD 79 etc. In view of the guidance available in the afore-cited judicial pronouncements, 1 hold that the additional evidence as mentioned in para 2.3 above are admissible u/r 46A and are taken on record. 2.4.2 Having decided the question of admission of additional evidence, now the substanti…

M/S. Deschem Technological Resources Private Limited, Baroda vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 1551/AHD/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1551/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2005-2006 M/S Deschem Technologies Resources I.T.O., Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ward-1(2), 106 To 108, Baroda. Shreeji Avenue, Opp. New India Mill, Jetapur Road, Baroda-390035. Pan: Aabcd7163P

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, with Shri P.B. Parmar A.RsFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.D.R
Section 10BSection 68

…to the assessee. Thus the ld. CIT-A is empowered to admit the documents filed by the assessee as additional documents in the rule as discussed above. 11.4 We also note that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v/s CIT reported in 231 ITR 1 has directed to admit the additional evidences by observing as under: “Further, under sub-section (4) of section 250 of the Act, the AAC is empowered to make such further inquiry as he thinks fit or to direct the ITO to make further inquiry and to report the matter to him. It is, thus, clear that the powers of the AAC are much wider than the powers…

ACIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Intellect Design Arena Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1478/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1477 & 1478/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs M/S. Intellect Design Arena Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Polaris House, Corporate Circle 2(2), No.244, Anna Salai, Chennai – 34. Chennai – 600 006. Pan: Aaacl5896N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate
Section 250

…the powers to direct the production of any document or examination of any witness to enable him to dispose the appeal. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee placed his reliance on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Prabhavati S Shah vs. CIT, 231 ITR 1. The Ld.AR has also placed his reliance on the order of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in M/s.Super Leasing Ltd. Vs ACIT, 56 TTJ 258. 4. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the material available on record. The only issue arises for consideration is whether the CIT(A) being the first appellate authority under the s…

Vritti Impex Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) 8 (3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-2013

ITA 1853/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Vritti Impex Pvt. Ltd., The Acit Circle – 11(3)(2), 60, Ground Floor, Ram Mahal Aayakar Bhavan, Society, Opp. Mahim Rly. Station, Mumbai Senapati Bapat Marg, Mahim (W), Vs. Mumbai - 400031 Pan: Aabcv3176C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Gopal/Tanmay Phadake (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2019

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal/Tanmay Phadake (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (DR)
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 40

…t details is overruled because it is the settled law that an Appellate Authority can always entertain evidence which is necessary to decide the issue in appeal – especially evidence which has a direct bearing on the dispute:- (i) CIT vs. Smt. Prabhavati Shah 231 ITR 1 (Bom) (ii) CIT vs. Suretech Hospital & Research Centre Ltd [2007] 293 ITR 53 (Bom) Thus, the same has been admitted and considered. Hence, this ground of appeal is allowed, as stated above.” 8. Considering the above, we find that the assessee discharged his onus validly, therefore, the conclusions given by the CIT (A) does not call for any interfer…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati vs. M/S. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., Guwahati

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 278/GTY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

…of assessment and not merely what was the subject matter of appeal. Reference may also be made to another decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT V Ahmedabad Crucible Company (1994) 206 ITR 574(Guj). In case of SmtPrabhavati S Shah V CIT (1998) 231 ITR 1 (Bom) it is held that on a plain reading of Rule 46A, it is clear that this rule is intended to put fetters on the right of the assessee to produce before AAC, any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the proceedings before the ITO, except in the circumstances set out therein. It does not deal with t…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 03, Guwahati vs. Numaligarh Refinery Limited, Guwahati

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 28/GTY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

…of assessment and not merely what was the subject matter of appeal. Reference may also be made to another decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT V Ahmedabad Crucible Company (1994) 206 ITR 574(Guj). In case of SmtPrabhavati S Shah V CIT (1998) 231 ITR 1 (Bom) it is held that on a plain reading of Rule 46A, it is clear that this rule is intended to put fetters on the right of the assessee to produce before AAC, any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the proceedings before the ITO, except in the circumstances set out therein. It does not deal with t…

Numaligarh Refinery Limited, Guwahati vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 03, Guwahati

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 27/GTY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

…of assessment and not merely what was the subject matter of appeal. Reference may also be made to another decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT V Ahmedabad Crucible Company (1994) 206 ITR 574(Guj). In case of SmtPrabhavati S Shah V CIT (1998) 231 ITR 1 (Bom) it is held that on a plain reading of Rule 46A, it is clear that this rule is intended to put fetters on the right of the assessee to produce before AAC, any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the proceedings before the ITO, except in the circumstances set out therein. It does not deal with t…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati vs. M/S. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., Guwahati

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 98/GTY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

…of assessment and not merely what was the subject matter of appeal. Reference may also be made to another decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT V Ahmedabad Crucible Company (1994) 206 ITR 574(Guj). In case of SmtPrabhavati S Shah V CIT (1998) 231 ITR 1 (Bom) it is held that on a plain reading of Rule 46A, it is clear that this rule is intended to put fetters on the right of the assessee to produce before AAC, any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the proceedings before the ITO, except in the circumstances set out therein. It does not deal with t…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati vs. M/S. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., Guwahati

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 97/GTY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

…of assessment and not merely what was the subject matter of appeal. Reference may also be made to another decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT V Ahmedabad Crucible Company (1994) 206 ITR 574(Guj). In case of SmtPrabhavati S Shah V CIT (1998) 231 ITR 1 (Bom) it is held that on a plain reading of Rule 46A, it is clear that this rule is intended to put fetters on the right of the assessee to produce before AAC, any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the proceedings before the ITO, except in the circumstances set out therein. It does not deal with t…

M/S. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., Guwahati vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 90/GTY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

…of assessment and not merely what was the subject matter of appeal. Reference may also be made to another decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT V Ahmedabad Crucible Company (1994) 206 ITR 574(Guj). In case of SmtPrabhavati S Shah V CIT (1998) 231 ITR 1 (Bom) it is held that on a plain reading of Rule 46A, it is clear that this rule is intended to put fetters on the right of the assessee to produce before AAC, any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the proceedings before the ITO, except in the circumstances set out therein. It does not deal with t…

M/S. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., Guwahati vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 89/GTY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

…of assessment and not merely what was the subject matter of appeal. Reference may also be made to another decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT V Ahmedabad Crucible Company (1994) 206 ITR 574(Guj). In case of SmtPrabhavati S Shah V CIT (1998) 231 ITR 1 (Bom) it is held that on a plain reading of Rule 46A, it is clear that this rule is intended to put fetters on the right of the assessee to produce before AAC, any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the proceedings before the ITO, except in the circumstances set out therein. It does not deal with t…

M/S. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., Guwahati vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 8/GTY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

…of assessment and not merely what was the subject matter of appeal. Reference may also be made to another decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT V Ahmedabad Crucible Company (1994) 206 ITR 574(Guj). In case of SmtPrabhavati S Shah V CIT (1998) 231 ITR 1 (Bom) it is held that on a plain reading of Rule 46A, it is clear that this rule is intended to put fetters on the right of the assessee to produce before AAC, any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the proceedings before the ITO, except in the circumstances set out therein. It does not deal with t…

M/S. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., Guwahati vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 7/GTY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

…of assessment and not merely what was the subject matter of appeal. Reference may also be made to another decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT V Ahmedabad Crucible Company (1994) 206 ITR 574(Guj). In case of SmtPrabhavati S Shah V CIT (1998) 231 ITR 1 (Bom) it is held that on a plain reading of Rule 46A, it is clear that this rule is intended to put fetters on the right of the assessee to produce before AAC, any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the proceedings before the ITO, except in the circumstances set out therein. It does not deal with t…

M/S. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., Guwahati vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 5/GTY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

…of assessment and not merely what was the subject matter of appeal. Reference may also be made to another decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT V Ahmedabad Crucible Company (1994) 206 ITR 574(Guj). In case of SmtPrabhavati S Shah V CIT (1998) 231 ITR 1 (Bom) it is held that on a plain reading of Rule 46A, it is clear that this rule is intended to put fetters on the right of the assessee to produce before AAC, any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the proceedings before the ITO, except in the circumstances set out therein. It does not deal with t…

Inder Mohan Khurana, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6553/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 124(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…02.2015 along with L1C premium receipt S. No. Particulars 1. Sequence of event 2. Dushyant Kumar Jain v. Dv. CIT ^ 381 ITR 428.(Del.) 3. Dr. Mrs. K.B. Kumar v. Income-tax Officer [2011] 12 taxmann.com 318 (Delhi) & 47 SOT 192 4. Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah r. CIT 231 ITR 1 (Bom.) 5. CIT v. Navodaya Castles Pvt. Ltd. 367 ITR 306 (Del.) 6. Sona Electronic Co. v. CIT 152 ITR 507(Del). 7. Abhishek Jain v. Income Tax Officer 405 ITR 1 (Del.) 8. Padamsundara Rao (DECD) and Others v. State of Tamilnadu and Others [2002] 255 ITR 147(S.C) 9. Returns & Jurisdiction 10. Sardar Baldev Sing v. CIT 40 ITR 605(S.C) 11. Section 64 o…

Asst CIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Zydus Nycomed Healthcare P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3336/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.3336/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Acit 15(3)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Zydus Nycomed Room No.451, 4Th Floor, Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C-4 Mid, Vill. Pawane, Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Thane Belapur Road, Vashi, Karve Road, Mumbai- Navi Mumbai-400705. 400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.4670/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) बिधम/ Dcit-15(3)(1) M/S. Zydus Nycomed Room No. 451, 4Th Floor, Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C-4 Mid, Vill. Pawane, Aayakar Bhavan,Maharshi Thane Belapur Road, Vashi, Karve Road, Mumbai- Navi Mumbai-400705. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz0736D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Manjunatha Swamy (Dr) Assessee By: Shri B. V. Jhaveri (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/08/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/08/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2009- 10 & 2011-12. I.T.A. Nos.3336/Mum/2016 4670/Mum/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri B. V. Jhaveri (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy (DR)
Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80ISection 92C

…er to examine the additional evidence. In view of the same it was held that there was no perversity in the finding of the Tribunal in confirming the action of the CIT(A). 2.4.23 Hon'ble jurisdictional High court in the case of Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah Vs. CIT 231 ITR 1 (Born) has held that the AAC {now the same powers being exercised by CIT(A)}is not fettered by Rule 46A in examining or calling for production of any documents and has in fact wide powers under sub sec(4) of Section 250 to make such further enquiry as he thinks fit. Hon'ble Bombay High Court further held that the powers of the AAC which are wider t…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3076/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 10BSection 29Section 32Section 32(2)Section 43A

…ot be denied the opportunity. Similarly it was held in Dwarka Prasad VIs ITO 63 ITD 1 (TM) that additional evidence if in the interest of justice, and renders assistance to the authority in passing order, may be admitted. Other similar rulings are 68 TTJ 722, 231 ITR 1, 21 SOT 218,293 ITR 53, 941TD 79 etc. In view of the guidance available in the afore-cited judicial pronouncements, 1 hold that the additional ITA No. 3076 & C.O. No. 318/Del/2012 19 evidence as mentioned in para 2.3 above are admissible u/r 46A and are taken on record. 2.4.2 Having decided the question of admission of additional evidence, now th…

DCIT, Circle-2 (1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Jagson Colorchem Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 112/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं. Ita No.112/Ahd/2017 With Co No. 32/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Asstt. Years: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Karan Shah, A.R
Section 195Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40

…t filed before the A.O. This ratio squarely applies on the facts on the present case in as much as here also A.O.'s allegation was that the evidences were not filed before him which is not justified ground for rejection. - Smt. Prabhavati Shah Vs. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 1 (Bom.) IT No. 112/Ahd/2017 A.Yr. 2013-14 CO. No. 32/Ahd/2017 5 - CIT Vs. Suretech Hospital & Research Centre Ltd. (2007) 293 ITR 53 whereby it has been held that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that documents produced by the appellant before the CIT(A) were necessary for disposal of the appeal on merits it was justified in holding that the CI…