9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (9) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch was not produced before the lower authorities. To show that the legal representative of the deceased-assessee is entitled to produce before the Tribunal additional evidence, the learned counsel appearing for the legal representative of the deceased-assessee placed strong reliance upon rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. In order to determine the applicability of rule 29, it is necessary to state the relevant facts. The assessee was one A. K. Babu Khan who died on October 2, 1968. He was assessed to wealth-tax ex parte by the Wealth-tax Officer as he did not submit the returns in any one of the five relevant assessment years 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64, Several notices were served upon him bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the words "or for any other substantial cause" occurring in rule 29 and, therefore, it is fit case where it should be held, having regard to the fact that the legal representative is in possession of the material which became available to him subsequent to the death of the assessee, that he should be allowed to produce that evidence. Rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, reads: " The parties to the appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence either oral or documentary before the Tribunal, but if the Tribunal requires any documents to be produced or any witness to be examined or any affidavit to be filed to enable it to pass orders or for any other substantial cause, or if the Income-tax Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entence and it is only where the appellate court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined that this rule will apply. The discretion to receive additional evidence is to be exercised only when any point is required to be cleared up in the interests of justice. This power given to the Tribunal has to be exercised cautiously and sparingly in order to advance the interests of justice. Rule 29 is not intended to allow an assessee who has been unsuccessful throughout to patch up the weak parts of his case or to fill up omissions. It is well settled that a party guilty of remissness and gross negligence as in this case is not entitled to indulgence being shown to adduce additional evidence. The assessee had ample oppor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Babulal Nim, held that the admissibility of additional evidence under rule 29 depends on whether or not the Tribunal requires it to enable it to pass orders or for any other substantial cause. There is also nothing to suggest from the order of the Tribunal that it had not exercised its discretion properly in refusing to receive the additional evidence sought to be produced by the legal representative. We, therefore, answer the question in the negative and against the assessee. The costs will be paid by the legal representative of the deceased-assessee. Advocate's fee Rs.250 (Rupees two hundred and fifty only). Question answered in the negative. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Wealth ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
