Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.33 seconds)
Acit, New Delhi vs M/S. Parnav Vikas India Ltd., New Delhi on 16 January, 2019 cites

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 6 vs New Horizon Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. on 24 July, 2018

9.6 In our opinion, in the instant case also, the issue in dispute need to be decided in view of the above finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarvana Spinning Mills Private Limited (supra). Since the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue in dispute without verifying the documentary evidences, we feel it appropriate to restore this issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh in accordance with the law. The ground No. 4 of the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P vs Kanpur Coal Syndicate on 30 April, 1964

22. As we have with the consent of the learned counsel, heard them on merits, we proceed to decide the aforesaid substantial questions of law. Since the CIT(A) himself refers to r. 46A and has also admitted that the confirmation letters adduced by the assessee before him were technically fresh evidence, it is not possible to accept the plea of the learned counsel for the assessee that the CIT(A), in examining the confirmation letters, was exercising his independent powers of enquiry under sub-s. (4) of s. 250 of the IT Act. It is true that the CIT(A) as first appellate authority has coterminous powers over the sources of income constituting the subject-matter of the assessment, except the power to tackle new sources of income not considered by the AO, and can do what the AO can do and can direct the AO to do what he has failed to do, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kanpur Coal Syndicate (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC) but in this case, the CIT(A) did not exercise this right. This power, which is recognized in sub-s. (4) of s. 250, has to be exercised by the CIT(A) and there should be material on record to show that he, while disposing of the appeal, had directed further enquiry and called for the confirmation letters from the assessee even in respect of receipt of monies from customers by way of cheques. Rule 46A is a provision in the IT Rules, 1962 which is invoked, on the other hand, by the assessee who is in an appeal before the CIT(A). Once the assessee invokes r. 46A and prays for admission of additional evidence before the CIT(A), then the procedure prescribed in the said rule has to be scrupulously followed. The fact that sub-s. (4) of s. 250 confers powers on the CIT(A) to conduct an enquiry as he thinks fit, while disposing of the appeal, cannot be relied upon to contend that the procedural requirements of r. 46A need not be complied with. If such a plea of the assessee is accepted, it would reduce r. 46A to a dead letter because it would then be open to every assessee to furnish additional evidence before the CIT(A) and thereafter 18 ITA No.877/Del/2015 contend that the evidence should be accepted and taken on record by the CIT(A) by virtue of his powers of enquiry under sub-s. (4) of s. 250. This would mean in turn that the requirement of recording reasons for admitting the additional evidence, the requirement of examining whether the conditions for admitting the additional evidence are satisfied, the requirement that the AO should be allowed a reasonable opportunity of examining the evidence etc. can be thrown to the winds, a position which is wholly unacceptable and may result in unacceptable and unjust consequences. The fundamental rule which is valid in all branches of law, including IT Law, is that the assessee should adduce the entire evidence in his possession at the earliest point of time. This ensures full, fair and detailed enquiry and verification.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 429 - Full Document
1