Commissioner of Income Tax vs Sri Sunil Kumar Thakur

We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant-department.

The assessee went before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal taking the plea that the amount, which has been added to the assessee''s income had already been included in the income of Ramesh Kumar Jain, proprietor of M/s. Jain Enterprises, Ferozabad, and therefore, the same could not be subjected to taxation in two hands i.e. in the hands of assessee as well as in the hands of Ramesh Kumar Jain.

This contention was accepted by the Tribunal, which deleted the entire addition on the aforesaid ground of double taxation.

The Income Tax Department has come in appeal u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that this new fact brought before the Tribunal that the amount had already been taxed in the hands of Ramesh Kumar Jain, should not have been considered by the Tribunal, as it was an additional evidence, not acceptable in view of Rules 29 and 30 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963.

It may be mentioned here that the department is not alleging even in this appeal that the amount has not been included in the income of Ramesh Kumar Jain.

That being the situation, we should think that fairness demanded that the Income Tax Department itself should have brought this fact on record, instead of trying to tax the same amount in two hands on technical pleas.

In the circumstances, this appeal is dismissed.