Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Inderpal Chawla
2010 Latest Caselaw 4447 Del

                                                                                      #6
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+       ITA 1424/2010

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX     ..... Appellant
                  Through Ms. Sonia Mathur, Advocate

                        versus

INDERPAL CHAWLA                                 ..... Respondent
                                 Through        None


                                      Date of Decision : 21st September, 2010

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.


                                 JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of Income

Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity "Act, 1961") challenging the order dated

11th September, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in

short "Tribunal") in ITA No. 3091/Del/2009 for the Assessment Year

2005-2006.

2. Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned senior standing counsel for Revenue

submitted that the Tribunal had erred in law in upholding the action of

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short "CIT(A)"] of

admitting the additional evidence filed by the assessee during the

appellate proceedings in contravention of Rule 46A of Income Tax

Rules, 1962. She further submitted that Tribunal had erred in law in

upholding the reduction in the addition made by the Assessing Officer

(in short "AO") on account of unexplained income under Section 68/69

of Act, 1961, from ` 29,80,995/- to ` 93,282/- .

3. Having heard Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned counsel for Revenue

and upon a perusal of the file, we are of the view that admission of the

additional evidence at appellate stage is well within the legal

parameters as laid down in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. In

fact, the additional evidence was forwarded to A.O for his remand

report and the same was verified by A.O in the remand proceedings.

4. Further, in the remand proceedings neither the A.O made any

averment that the deposit in the saving bank account was an amount

other than the sale proceeds of the assessee‟s business nor did he make

any other adverse finding in regard to the said deposit. Consequently,

we do not find any legal infirmity in the action of the two authorities

below in reducing the addition to ` 93,282/- being the amount of „peak‟

credit in the account of the assessee in IDBI.

5. Thus , the present appeal, being bereft of merit, is dismissed in

limine.

MANMOHAN, J

CHIEF JUSTICE SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 rn