- (1.) THE appellant is an HUF carrying on the business of selling of assets of old factory purchased through auction. For the assessment year 2005 -06 the appellant filed his return showing an income of Rs.2,51,496/ -. The case was selected under scrutiny and after issuance of a notice and considering the reply of the appellant the assessing officer invoked the provision of Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and made an addition of Rs.76,28,000/ - and assessed the income at Rs.81,83,810/ -. The appellant, being aggrieved, filed an appeal under Section 246 -A of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on various grounds and also submitted an application under Rule 46 -A of the Income Tax Rules seeking leave to file additional evidence. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) rejected the request of the appellant for additional evidence holding that there was no justifiable reasons for not submitting such evidence before the assessing authority. The appellate authority also rejected the appeal and confirmed the addition made by the assessing authority. The appellant, being aggrieved, filed the second appeal before the Tribunal on various grounds. Ground No.3 related to the additional evidence under Rule 46 -A of the Income Tax Rules. For facility, the said ground is extracted hereunder: "Because the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is wrong in holding the import evidences/affidavit filed before him under rule 46A, as afterthought/fabricated and further erred in holding that no reason is given for filing additional evidences, without even examining such evidences/finding any defect anomaly in the same and in total disregard of the fact that reason is to file additional evidences is duly given while such evidence was necessary for the proper disposal of appeal, which is not only against the provisions of law but also against the provisions of natural justice."
(2.) THE Tribunal by the impugned order, dated Nil, rejected the request of the appellant to lead additional evidence. The appellant, being arrived by the order of the Tribunal, has filed the present appeal under Section 260 -A of the Act.
(3.) WE have heard Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal, the learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Suyash Agarwal, for the appellant and Sri Govind Krishna, the learned counsel for the respondents. The Court pointed out to the learned counsel for the assessee that the appeal against an interim order is not maintainable under Section 260 -A of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal under Section 260 -A of the Act can be filed against every order of the Tribunal, which would include even an interim order. Section 260 -A(1) of the Act reads as under: - "260 -A (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal [before the date of establishment of the National Tax Tribunal], if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.";