B. N. CHATURVEDI, J.

( 1 ) THE assessee was engaged in trading of purchase and sale of rice during the accounting period 1. 7. 1987 to 31. 3. 1989, relevant for assessment year 1989-90. The entire trading in rice was done by the assessee through M/s. Ram krishan Dass Narinder Prakash. During the said period, four major sale and purchase transactions took place. Out of these, the assessee showed profits in two transactions and loss in the remaining two. The assessing officer, in order to verify the genuineness of the transactions resulting into loss, examined persons concerned and also made further necessary enquiries. On verification, the assessing officer found that sales and purchase of rice made by M/s. Ram krishan Dass Narinder Prakash on behalf of the assessee were not genuine and represented a paper transaction only. He, therefore, disallowed the loss of rs. 86. 11 lacs.

( 2 ) AGAINST disallowance of loss of Rs. 86. 11 lacs by the assessing officer, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT (A) but without a success as the CIT (A) confirmed the addition made by the assessing officer while disallowing the loss, as aforesaid. Dissatisfied by such decision, the assessee further appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Branch. The tribunal, eventually, set aside the assessment order and directed the assessing officer to decide the matter afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Pursuant to such direction, the matter again came up before the assessing officer, who required the assessee to furnish certain informations, as detailed in his order dated 9. 12. 1994. That apart, the assessee was also required to produce its books of account along with the stock register. The assessee failed to furnish all the informations required by the assessing officer, but produced its books of account. On consideration of entire material, including account books, the assessing officer held the loss- making transactions as bogus ones and, accordingly, the loss of Rs. 86. 11 lacs was once again disallowed.

( 3 ) IN the first appeal, CIT (A) set aside the order of the assessing officer and deleted the addition made by the assessing officer, keeping in view certain additional evidence, which he allowed to be produced by the assessee in the course of hearing on appeal.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the order passed by CIT (A), the Revenue went in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the order passed by CIT (A) and confirmed the one passed by the assessing officer. While setting aside the order of CIT (A), the tribunal observed thus:"even during the original assessment proceedings, the assessee could not lead any evidence also whether any payment was made towards advance or commission. Despite this factual position the learned CIT (A) entertained the submissions of the assessee that it had actually made the payment to M/s. RKDNP. When the statement of Shri Ram Kishan, partner of M/s. RKDNP is categorical that no payment is made throughout the year by the assessee and further no evidence was produced before the AO either during the original proceedings or in second round it is not known as to how the learned CIT (A) entertained the contention of the assessee with regard to the payments. Rule 56 A of the IT Rules 1962, clearly provides that the assessee shall not be entitled to produce before the first appellate authority any evidence whether oral or documentary other than the evidence produced by him during the course of the assessment proceedings. Four exceptions have been carved out to this rule and we find that the case of the assessee does not fall in any of these. In view of this fact, we hold that the learned CIT (A) was not entitled to consider any additional evidence during the course of first appellate proceedings. When the AO specifically required the assessee to produce certain evidence and despite several opportunities granted by him there is no compliance on behalf

Click Here to Read the rest of this document