COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. RANJIT KUMAR CHOUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned Counsel appearing for the Department/appellant as well as Mr. G.K. Joshi, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R.K. Joshi, and Mrs. U. Chakravorty, learned Counsel appearing for the assessee/respondent.

(2.) AT the time of admission of this appeal on May 16, 2005, the following substantial question of law was framed:

(3.) IT is submitted on behalf of the Revenue that the Tribunal while dismissing the appeal preferred by the Revenue and thereby confirming the order dated November 12, 2003, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (for short, "the CIT"), failed to construe and interpret the provisions of rule 46A in its true perspective and resultantly arrived at an erroneous decision and that too on the basis of irrelevant considerations. According to him, the xerox copies of the sale bills and the receipts of an amount of Rs. 6,38,000, which was initially added by the assessing authority to the capital account under the cover of sale proceeds of utensils, being remained unexplained, was allowed to be adduced as an additional evidence by the appellate authority, i.e., Commissioner of Income Tax without following the procedural law prescribed under Sub -rules (1), (2) and (3) of Rules 46A.