RAJESH AGARWAL HUF Vs. COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is an HUF carrying on the business of selling of assets of old factory purchased through auction. For the assessment year 2005 -06 the appellant filed his return showing an income of Rs.2,51,496/ -. The case was selected under scrutiny and after issuance of a notice and considering the reply of the appellant the assessing officer invoked the provision of Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and made an addition of Rs.76,28,000/ - and assessed the income at Rs.81,83,810/ -. The appellant, being aggrieved, filed an appeal under Section 246 -A of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on various grounds and also submitted an application under Rule 46 -A of the Income Tax Rules seeking leave to file additional evidence. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) rejected the request of the appellant for additional evidence holding that there was no justifiable reasons for not submitting such evidence before the assessing authority. The appellate authority also rejected the appeal and confirmed the addition made by the assessing authority. The appellant, being aggrieved, filed the second appeal before the Tribunal on various grounds. Ground No.3 related to the additional evidence under Rule 46 -A of the Income Tax Rules. For facility, the said ground is extracted hereunder:

(2.) THE Tribunal by the impugned order, dated Nil, rejected the request of the appellant to lead additional evidence. The appellant, being arrived by the order of the Tribunal, has filed the present appeal under Section 260 -A of the Act.

(3.) WE have heard Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal, the learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Suyash Agarwal, for the appellant and Sri Govind Krishna, the learned counsel for the respondents.