VIJAY TRADING CO. V. INCOME TAX OFFICER

TAXAP/416/2000

AI Insights

The case involves Vijay Trading Co., the appellant, challenging the judgment and order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, which dismissed their appeal regarding the addition of Rs. 4,43,352 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act and the levy of interest under section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant argued that the Tribunal should have allowed them to produce additional documents under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. However, the Tribunal found no request for additional documents was made before the CIT(A), and thus, it was not permissible at the appeal stage.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 753732 (HC-GUJARAT)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: NITIN MEHTA
• Assessee Lawyers: H M TALATI; TEJ SHAH
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Assessment Order; Income tax appellate tribunal; Rule 29; Sales Tax Department
• Section: 143(2); 68; 234B

Judgement Text

"O/TAXAP/416/2000 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 416 of 2000 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER ================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ VIJAY TRADING CO.....Appellant(s) Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR HM TALATI, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR TEJ SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR NITIN K MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI and Page 1 of 5 O/TAXAP/416/2000 JUDGMENT HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER Date : 10/12/2014 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 11.6.2000 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench ‘B’, Ahmedabad in ITA No. 933/Ahd/99 for AY 1995-96. 2. While admitting this appeal, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law: “Whether on the basis of the grounds urged in the memo of appeal, the Tribunal ought to have allowed an opportunity to the assessee to lead additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 in the matter of addition of Rs. 4,43,352/- under section 68 of the Income Tax Act and levy of interest under section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?” 3. The facts of the present case are that the return of income is filed on 27.10.1995 showing income of Rs. 53,200/-.In response to notice u/s. 143(2) of the IT Act, the assessee has furnished the necessary details. During the course of Page 2 of 5 O/TAXAP/416/2000 JUDGMENT proceedings, the assessee was requested to furnish the copy of assessment order passed by the Sales-Tax Department inhis case. The same was filed by the assessee. On verification of the Sales-tax order, it is found that the assessee made purchases from various parties during the relevant period. Thereafter, after considering the material on record, the assessment order came to be passed. Against the said assessment order, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) which was partly allowed. Against the said order, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the ITAT which was dismissed. Hence, the present Tax Appeal is preferred before this court by the assessee. 4. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and considered the submissions. Learned advocate for the appellant has contended that in view of provisions of Rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, the Tribunal ought to have permitted the assessee to produce the additional documents. Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal rules, 1963, reads as under: Production of additional evidence before the Tribunal “29. The parties to the appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence either oral or documentary before the Tribunal, but if the tribunal requires any document to be produced or Page 3 of 5 O/TAXAP/416/2000 JUDGMENT any witness to be examined or any affidavit to be filed to enable it to pass orders or for any other substantial cause, or, if the income-tax authorities have decided the case without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to adduce evidence either on points specified by them or not specified by then, the Tribunal, for reasons to be recorded, may allow such documents to be produced or witness to be examined or affidavit to be filed or may allow such evidence to be adduced.” 5. Learned advocate for the appellant has further contended that looking to his business he was not allowed to explain the addition of Rs. 4,43,352/- which was required for the purposes of advance for the supply of material which is required to be supplied to the different customers. Mr. Mehta learned advocate for the respondent-Revenue has contended that though the appellant has requested for production of documents, but no such request was made before the CIT(A). The Tribunal has also not permitted the assessee to produce additional documents and has rightly not allowed the production of additional documents at the appeal stage. 6. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties, in our view, it is very clear from the discussion of the Tribunal that if the assessee or the department is declined to produce the documents inspite of the request made before the authority, nothing on record to show that Page 4 of 5 O/TAXAP/416/2000 JUDGMENT such a request was made before the CIT(A). In that view of the matter, since there was no request, the Tribunal has rightly not permitted the assessee to produce additional documents and the Tribunal has not committed any error by not permitting the assessee to produce additional documents. In that view of the matter, the question- whether on the basis of the grounds urged in the memo of appeal, the Tribunal ought to have allowed an opportunity to the assessee to lead additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 in the matter of addition of Rs. 4,43,352/- under section 68 of the Income Tax Act and levy of interest under section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The present Tax Appeal is dismissed. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (K.J.THAKER, J) mandora Page 5 of 5 "