1987 (1) TMI 125 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Request for opportunity to produce fresh evidence before the Tribunal
- Disbelief of assessee's claim by the ITO regarding advances received
- Tribunal's consideration of fresh evidence produced by the assessee
- Rejection of assessee's miscellaneous application for producing additional evidence

Analysis:

The judgment revolves around the assessee's request for an opportunity to present fresh evidence before the Tribunal. The assessee, engaged in the jewelry business, had claimed to have received advances from parties in the Middle East for purchasing jewelry. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initially disbelieved the claim due to the absence of jewelry exports or repayment of advances. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the claim, which was further contested by the revenue. The Tribunal, during the hearing, was presented with new evidence of jewelry supplies to specific parties in 1984. Despite this, the Tribunal did not give weight to this evidence, citing reasons in its order and emphasizing that the assessee had ample time to gather evidence since 1977.

The assessee's repeated application sought to introduce additional evidence, arguing that the supplies to the parties were made after the Commissioner (Appeals) order, justifying the need for additional time to address the revenue's objections. However, the Tribunal rejected the application, stating that parties in an appeal are not entitled to produce additional evidence under rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, unless for substantial cause. The judgment referenced legal precedents emphasizing the limited scope for introducing new evidence at the appellate stage and the discretion of the Tribunal to permit such evidence sparingly.

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's miscellaneous application, highlighting that the request amounted to seeking a review of the order, which was beyond its competence. The judgment reinforced the principle that additional evidence should not be allowed to patch up a weak case and cautioned against liberal admission of evidence at the appellate stage. The rejection was based on the legal framework governing the introduction of new evidence and the discretion of the Tribunal in permitting such additions, which was exercised by denying the assessee's request in this instance.