Additional Evidence by Revenue before ITAT
Income tax Act does not provide for modification of the order that has already been passed. The appellate procedure has been designed to adjudicate the matters that were originally framed in the assessment order.
1. The appeal was disposed of by Tribunal on 09.05.2016
2. Later it came to Tribunal's notice that they have not disposed of the issues urged in the revised grounds of appeal filed by the revenue, which is filed along with the prayer to admit certain additional evidence, even though lengthy argument took place on the above said matter during the course of hearing
3. Hence Tribunal issued corrigendum to dispose of the matters relating to the above said items
4. The revenue has moved a petition praying for admission of additional evidence, which is in the form of sworn statement taken from Shri Jagdish Prasad Purohit
5. The Ld D.R submitted that the investigation wing has taken a statement from the above said person during the course of search action conducted in the Pride Group of Pune and he has admitted in the statement while giving answer to Q.no.11 that the Pride group had approached him to invest in their group in the form of Share Capital as an accommodation entry through M/s ACPL
6. The revenue has moved a petition to admit the copy of statement taken from Shri Jagdish Prasad Purohit as additional evidence
7. The grounds of appeal have also been revised bringing above facts
8. Ld A.R objected to the admission of the additional evidences by submitting that Shri Jagdish Prasad Purohit has not implicated the assessee in the sworn statement and it is only a inference drawn by the Ld D.R in order to improve the case of the AO
9. Further Shri Jagdish Prasad Purohit has retracted from the statement given by him before the investigation wing by filing an affidavit
10. The Ld A.R also furnished a copy of affidavit filed by Mr. Purohit retracting from the statement
11. Accordingly he contended that the additional evidence sought to be filed by the revenue should not be admitted and even if it is admitted, the revenue cannot place reliance thereon
12. He further submitted that these materials were not available or considered either by the AO or by Ld CIT(A) and accordingly objected to the admission of the same
After passing the assessment order, the assessing officer becomes functus officio and hence, if any material or information comes to the knowledge of the AO subsequently, then the assessing officer is required to follow the course of action provided under the Act and the Income tax Act does not provide for modification of the order that has already been passed. The appellate procedure has been designed to adjudicate the matters that were originally framed in the assessment order. Hence, in our considered view, it may not be correct an altogether new material at this stage.
Since the additional evidence sought to be relied upon by the revenue is a debatable one; since the same was not considered or relied upon by the AO and since alternative course of action is available to the revenue under the Act to deal with the same, in our view, it should not be admitted at this stage. Accordingly we are of the view that the grounds urged by placing reliance on the same are also liable to be dismissed. Accordingly we decline to admit the additional evidence filed by the revenue and the revised grounds urged by the revenue in connection there with are also dismissed.
Cases Referred to