[CIT v. Text Hundred India (P) Ltd., 197 Taxman 128 (Del.)]
In an appeal before the Tribunal filed by the assessee, the Tribunal admitted certain additional evidence filed by the assessee, allowing the application of the assessee u/r. 29 and remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh after considering the said additional evidence.
The Revenue filed an appeal before the High Court contending that Rule 29 permits the Tribunal only to seek the production of any document or witness or affidavit, etc., to enable it to pass orders or for any other substantial cause; and that the assessee had no right to move any application for producing additional evidence.
The Delhi High Court held as under: “(i) As per the language of Rule 29, parties are not entitled to produce additional evidence. It is only when the Tribunal requires such an additional evidence in the form of any document or affidavit or examination of a witness or through a witness, it would call for the same or direct any affidavit to be filed, that too in the following circumstances:
(a) when the Tribunal feels that it is necessary to enable it to pass orders; or
(b) for any substantial cause; or
(c) where the Income Tax Authorities did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee to adduce evidence.
(ii) In the instant case, it was the assessee who had moved an application for production of additional evidence. It had the opportunity to file evidence before the Assessing Officer or even before the Commissioner (Appeals) but it chose not to file that evidence.
(iii) In view of several decisions, a discretion lies with the Tribunal to admit additional evidence in the interest of justice, once the Tribunal affirms opinion that doing so would be necessary for proper adjudication of the matter and this can be done even when application is filed by one of parties to appeal and it need not to be a suo motu action of the Tribunal.
(iv) The aforesaid rule is made for enabling the Tribunal to admit the additional evidence in its discretion, if the Tribunal holds the view that such an additional evidence would be necessary to do substantial justice in the matter. It is well settled that the procedure is handmade for justice and should not be allowed to be choked only because of some inadvertent error or omission on the part of one of the parties to lead evidence at the appropriate stage. 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 said evidence would have material bearing on the issue which needed to be decided by the Tribunal and ends of justice demand admission of such an evidence, the Tribunal can pass an order to that effect.
(v) In the instant case, the Tribunal looked into the entire matter and arrived at a conclusion that the additional evidence was necessary for deciding the issue at hand. It was, thus, clear that the Tribunal found the requirement of the said evidence for proper adjudication of the matter and in the interest of substantial cause.
(vi) Rule 29 categorically permits the Tribunal to allow such documents to be produced for any substantial cause. Once the Tribunal had predicated its decision on that basis, there was no reason to interfere with the same.”
