Commissioner of Income Tax vs Imperial Cables (P.) Ltd.

The revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 7-7-2005 passed by the income tax Appellate Authority, Delhi Bench "C" in ITA No. 1784/(Delhi) /2002 relevant for the assessment year 1998-99. The only issue that has been raised in this appeal is about the admissibility of additional evidence by the Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) under rule 46A of the income tax Rules.

It appears that before the Assessing Officer adequate opportunities were given to the assessee to produce documents in support of expenditure towards payment of commission but the assessee failed to do so. The Assessing Officer then proceeded to reject his claim.

Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). He also moved an application under rule 46A of the Rules seeking to produce additional documents. Before entertaining the additional evidence, the CIT(A) wrote a letter to the Assessing Officer but no reply was received. Thereafter, a reminder was sent on 2-8-2001 but to no effect. Despite this, the CIT(A) gave yet another opportunity to the Assessing Officer by sending a letter dated 27-11-2001 for his comments and the report of the Assessing Officer but again to no effect. Thereafter it appears that some further reminders were also issued from time to time but there was absolutely no response from the Assessing Officer. Under the circumstances, the CIT(A) took the additional evidence on record. Thereafter, the CIT(A) considered issue on merits and allowed the claim of the assessee.

The revenue thereafter preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which was dismissed by the impugned order. The Tribunal, apart for noticing the aforesaid facts, also noted the contention of the assessee that the assessee was prevented from producing a part of the documents desired by the Assessing Officer but had furnished a major part of the information/documents before the Assessing Officer.

As already mentioned, the only contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the additional evidence ought not to have been taken on record by the CIT(A).

We find from the material placed before us that more than adequate opportunities were given to the Assessing Officer to respond to the application moved by the assessee for placing additional evidence before the Appellate Authority. Since the Assessing Officer took no interest in the matter, the Appellate Authority had no option but to allow the application and to take the additional evidence on record. No grievance can be raised by the revenue in this regard. In our view, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration.

Dismissed.