The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 0135 (Bang-Trib)


Section 254

Since various document, papers, etc., all were produced by assessee, to admit additional evidence hence, there was no need to remit the issue to AO to decide the additional evidence and as such, additional evidence was thus, admitted by the Tribunal.

Appeal (Tribunal) - Additional evidence - Admissibility -

As can be seen from 'Index to Additional Evidence', certain documents were that of reconciliations of total stock sold and sale proceeds received by CEC/MC. Certain documents were VAT returns filed by MC on behalf of assessee in respect of value of goods sold for period 1-4-2011 to 31-3-2013. Assessee had filed ledger accounts and P&L A/cstatement for preceding and subsequent years. Tribunal noted that, there were certain documents, wherein MC issued refund to assessee. Tribunal noted that Annexure(s) R-9 and R-10 give details of illegal mining pit, illegal dump an area of illegal approached road as per survey conducted by CEC dated 3-12-2012. Held: In present case, additional evidences filed relate to facts, that were considered by authorities below. Tribunal noted that except for ledger accounts, all other documents were there on public domain. Ledger accounts filed for preceding and succeeding assessments years, cannot be considered as new documents as these were available in assessment records for relevant year. No prejudice will be caused to revenue, if these documents would be admitted. Accordingly this Tribunal did not find necessary to remit the appeal back to AO for consideration. As the Tribunal having analysed these documents, observed that details emanating therefrom, would be of assistance in deciding certain grounds before this Bench. Additional evidences filed by assessee, therefore, were admitted by the Bench.

Distinguished:Rishi Sagar v. ITO (2013) 36 508 (Chd-Trib) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 1294 (Chd-Trib), (2017) 88 600 (P&H) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1186 (P&H-HC), Jawahar Lal Jain (HUF) v. CIT (2015) 59 374 (P&H) : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 528 (P&H-HC) and Kanniappan Murugadoss v. ITO (2017) 79 244 (Chen-Trib) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 884 (Chen-Trib).


FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.

A.Y. : 2013-14


Section 5 Section 37(1)