Cit vs Hardat Rai Suresh Kumar
2007 Latest Caselaw 1248 Del

ORDER

1. The revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 26-8-2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench 'SMC-VI' in ITA No. 440/ Delhi/04 relevant for the assessment year 1998-99.

2. Reassessment proceedings in respect of the assessed were initiated on the basis of a document which, according to the assessing officer was a hundi. After reassessment, tax was levied on the assessed which was challenged by him before the Commissioner (Appeals).

3. The Commissioner examined the document and came to the conclusion that the contents of the document do not satisfy the requirements of a hundi. For this, the Commissioner entered into a detailed discussion and examined the document in the light of the requirements of a hundi as explained in CIT v. Dexan Pharmaceuticals (P.) Ltd. . Even on merits it was held that the addition was not justified.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner, the revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal was desirous of looking into the document to ascertain whether it was a hundi or not and the departmental Representative was asked to produce the document. Despite an opportunity having been given, the revenue did not produce the record before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal drew an adverse inference against the revenue, and relied upon the view taken by the Commissioner who had examined the document and come to a conclusion that it was not a hundi.

5. When the matter came up before this Court on 25-10-2005, the Division Bench noted the substance of the above facts and also noted that the learned Counsel for the revenue had offered to produce a copy of the document before arguing the matter for admission. The matter was adjourned for 10-2-2006 and it was directed that the needful be done in the meanwhile.

6. Thereafter the matter has been adjourned on five different occasions and more than 11/2 years have gone by but the revenue is unable to produce the document before us. It appears that since the date of the order of the Tribunal that is 26-8-2004 till today the revenue has taken no steps to either file a photocopy, of the document before us or to produce it in Court.

7. Under the circumstances, we do not think that the Tribunal committed any error in taking the view that it did. An adverse presumption only can be drawn against the revenue. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal.

8. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.