2013 (6) TMI 72 - HC - Income Tax

Admission 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.

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.
2. Sufficiency of cause for admitting fresh evidence due to non-retrieval of e-mails.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963:

The first issue pertains to whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) erred in law and on merits by admitting fresh evidence under Rule 29 and remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Rule 29 states that parties to the appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence before the Tribunal unless the Tribunal requires it to pass orders or for any substantial cause. The Tribunal can also allow additional evidence if the income-tax authorities did not provide sufficient opportunities to the assessee to adduce evidence.

The Tribunal justified the admission of additional evidence by stating that it was necessary to decide the substantial issue of fact on the merits, failing which there would be a substantial failure of justice. The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 2.17 crores as expenditure incurred on availing management services from overseas group companies. The lower authorities disallowed the expenditure due to a lack of evidence regarding the rendering of services. The Tribunal admitted the evidence under Rule 29, citing the non-retrievability of e-mails due to technological difficulties as a reason for the non-production of evidence before the lower authorities.

The Tribunal's decision was challenged by the Revenue, arguing that Rule 29 precludes parties from producing additional evidence and that the Tribunal did not suo motu require the production of these documents. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal acted upon the application preferred by the assessee, which is not permissible under Rule 29.

However, case law supports the Tribunal's discretion to admit additional evidence in the interest of justice. The Tribunal can allow additional evidence even when an application is filed by one of the parties, provided it is necessary for proper adjudication. The Tribunal's decision to admit additional evidence was deemed necessary to avoid a substantial failure of justice.

2. Sufficiency of Cause for Admitting Fresh Evidence Due to Non-retrieval of E-mails:

The second issue concerns whether the reason of non-retrieval of e-mails due to technical difficulties for almost three years before the lower authorities constitutes a sufficient cause for admitting fresh evidence under Rule 29.

The Tribunal found the reason provided by the assessee, i.e., non-retrievability of e-mails due to technological difficulties, to be a valid cause for admitting additional evidence. The Tribunal noted that no reply was filed by the Department refuting this reason, and it was not confronted during the proceedings. The Tribunal concluded that the additional evidence was necessary for proper adjudication and in the interest of substantial justice.

The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that Rule 29 permits the Tribunal to allow additional evidence for any substantial cause. The discretion exercised by the Tribunal was found to be appropriate, as it aimed to ensure a fair and just resolution of the matter.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the Tribunal's decision to admit additional evidence under Rule 29 was justified and necessary for proper adjudication. The Tribunal's exercise of discretion was upheld, and the appeals were dismissed in favor of the assessee. The court emphasized that procedural rules should not hinder the delivery of substantial justice.

← Previous Next →