Tribunal held that rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 categorically bars the production of additional evidence either oral or documentary before the Tribunal. However, if the Tribunal requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined so as to enable it to pass the order or for any other substantial cause then for the reasons to be recorded may allow such document to be produced or witness to be examined. The Department had nowhere mentioned why the documents needed to be filed nor explained the connectivity of these documents with the controversy in question and how in the absence of these documents, the Tribunal would not be in a position to decide the controversy in question effectively and completely. Therefore, the Department’s application for admitting the additional evidence did not satisfy the ingredients contained in rule 29. (AY.2009-10)
ITO v. Aravali Prime Consultants P. Ltd. (2020) 83 ITR 2 (SN) (Jaipur) (Trib.)
S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Additional evidence-Failure by department to show why documents needed or explain connection of documents with controversy in question-Additional evidence not to be admitted. [ITAT R, 1963, 29]