Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2013 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (6) TMI 72 - HC - Income TaxAdmission of fresh evidences by the ITAT under rule 29 - Diversion of income - management expenses paid to group companies - applicability of section 52(2) - held that:- The fact remains that it is not the Tribunal, while hearing the case, which asked for the production of these documents of its own. On the contrary, the Tribunal acted upon the application preferred by the assessee. That would clearly mean that it has allowed the assessee, i.e., the party to the appeal to produce the evidence. Calcutta High Court in ITO v. B. N. Bhattacharya [1976 (12) TMI 24 - CALCUTTA High Court] observed that, There might well be cases where even though the court found that it was able to pronounce judgment on the state of record as it was, and so it could not strictly say that it required additional evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment, it still considered that in the interest of justice something which remained obscure should be filled up so that it could pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. Such a case would be one for allowing additional evidence for any other substantial cause under rule 27(1)(b) of Order 41 of the Code. The aforesaid case law clearly lays down a neat principle of law that discretion lies with the Tribunal to admit additional evidence in the interest of justice once the Tribunal affirms the opinion that doing so would be necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. - Once it is found that the party intending to lead evidence before the Tribunal for the first time was prevented by sufficient cause to lead such an evidence and that this evidence would have material bearing on the issue which needs to be decided by the Tribunal and the ends of justice demand admission of such an evidence, the Tribunal can pass an order to that effect. In the present case, the reason which was given by the assessee in support of its plea for admission of additional evidence was that the assessee could not produce these records before the lower authorities due to non-retrievability of e-mail on the date because of technological difficulties. This reason was specifically mentioned in the application filed. No reply to this application was filed refuting this averment, though the Departmental representative had opposed the admission of the additional evidence. The ground pleaded by the assessee was not confronted. - Rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules categorically permits the Tribunal to allow such documents to be produced for any substantial cause. - Decided in favor of assessee.
|