MOTIA CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant challenges order dated 21.1.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") dismissing an appeal relating to an assessment year 2004 -05.

(2.) COUNSEL for the appellant submits that pursuant to a search and seizure on 25.2.2009 under Section 132, of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the Assessing Officer, passed an assessment order, dated 22.12.2010 adding development expenses, as the appellant could not furnish documentary evidence. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) -1, Ludhiana on the same ground but at the time of filing of the appeal before the Tribunal, the appellant was able to trace relevant vouchers and, therefore, filed an application for additional evidence for producing the vouchers before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has, however, rejected the application for additional evidence as well as the appeal by doubting the authenticity of the vouchers. Counsel for the appellant further submits that the vouchers were in possession of Shri Pawan Bansal, a Director, who resigned from company on 02.01.2009 along with two other Directors Shri Kewal Bansal and Smt. Pinky Bansal. Shri Pawan Bansal was managing the affairs of the company and was in possession of the vouchers. The appellant could not produce the vouchers either before the Assessing Officer or before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) but produced them before the Tribunal. The application for additional evidence and the appeal have been dismissed by doubting the authenticity of the vouchers and holding that the story put -forth by the appellant appears to be an after thought. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is clearly incorrect and gives rise to the following substantial questions of law: - -

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , pursuant to search and seizure, under Section 132 of the Act, the Assessing Officer called upon the appellant to explain development expenses of Rs. 21,82,240/ - but as the appellant could not produce any documentary evidence to support these expenses, the Assessing Officer passed assessment order, under Section 143(2)/153A of the Act disallowing the expenditure of Rs. 21,82,240/ -. The appellant filed an appeal which was rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), by holding that there is no evidence to support the expenditure of Rs. 21,82,240/ - claimed by the appellant. The appellant, thereafter, filed an appeal before the Tribunal accompanied by an application for additional evidence by appending a large number of vouchers and pleaded that the vouchers were in possession of Shri Pawan Bansal, a Director, who had resigned on 02.01.2009. The appellant has now been able to trace these vouchers and as he was prevented by sufficient cause, the vouchers should be taken into consideration. The Tribunal has considered the application for additional evidence, the vouchers appended with the application and dismissed the appeal by holding as follows: - -