Additional evidence in appeal requires strict compliance with admission conditions before it can be relied on; remand was .

Additional evidence in appeal cannot be relied on unless the conditions for its admission under the appellate rules are first satisfied, particularly where the assessee's stand has changed from the original proceedings and the document was not tested at the adjudication stage. Because the impugned certificate required verification and the department needed an opportunity to rebut it, the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have acted on it without compliance with the rule. The order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in relying on additional evidence without first satisfying the conditions governing its admission, and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The appellate rules governing reception of evidence required the assessee to show the existence of circumstances permitting admission of evidence not produced before the adjudicating authority. The assessee had taken a stand before the appellate authority that was materially different from its stand before the adjudicating authority, and the impugned certificate had not been tested at the original stage. In these circumstances, reliance on that evidence without compliance with the governing rule was not proper. Since the department must also have an opportunity to produce rebuttal material, the dispute required reconsideration by the original authority.

Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Additional evidence in appeal cannot be acted upon unless the conditions for its admission are satisfied, and where such evidence requires verification and rebuttal, remand is appropriate.

---