Ita/16/2008 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax And Another v. Society For Pollution & Environment Conservation Scientists, 64, East Rest Camp, Dehradun

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Income Tax Appeal No. 16 of 2008Commissioner of Income Tax and another. ..…..Appellants. Versus Society for Pollution & Environment Conservation Scientists, 64, East Rest Camp, Dehradun. ...Respondent Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate for the appellants. Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C. J.Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) Assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, assessment was made on the basis of Best judgment under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. Against that, an Appeal was preferred. Here, the evidence was brought on record. Under what circumstances, the Commissioner of Appeals can take note of evidence not produced before the Assessing Authority has been dealt with under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. One of them appears to be where the Assessing Officer has made the order appealed against without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to adduce evidence relevant to any grounds of Appeal. It appears that, on this ground, evidence was taken on record by the Commissioner of Appeals. Assessee obtained appropriate relief from the Commissioner of Appeals. The matter was, then, taken up by the Department before the Tribunal. The Tribunal refused to interfere on the ground that the amount involved in the Appeal is less than what has been prescribed in the instructions issued in 2005 by CBDT. In the present Appeal, it is being contended that the matter raises a substantial question of law. Accordingly, it was not proper on the part of the Tribunal not to entertain the Appeal only on the ground that the amount involved in the Appeal was less than what has been prescribed in the instructions issued in 2005 by CBDT. The grounds, upon which, appellants approached the Tribunal was, whether it was correct on the part of the Commissioner of Appeals to accept evidence at the appellate stage. This is a pure question of fact and no law is involved. Therefore, there is no scope of interference with the order of the Tribunal. The Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 31.05.2013 31.05.2013 Rathour