Additional evidence before ITAT may be admitted if relevant and necessary for resolving disputed facts, but unnecessary material can be rejected.

The Tribunal applied its wide power to admit additional evidence where the material is relevant and necessary for proper factual determination. It admitted LinkedIn profiles because they had a direct nexus with the issues of permanent establishment and attribution, and the assessee had not furnished complete employee information; the profiles were treated as public-domain material capable of assisting the factual inquiry. It rejected the whistleblower writ petition because it was not necessary for adjudication and had already been adversely considered in connected proceedings. The substantive appeals were left for hearing on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the department's additional evidence in the form of LinkedIn profiles was admissible before the Tribunal; (ii) Whether the whistleblower writ petition should be admitted as additional evidence.

Issue (i): Whether the department's additional evidence in the form of LinkedIn profiles was admissible before the Tribunal.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that it has wide powers under section 254(1) read with section 131(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 to admit evidence necessary for a proper factual determination. It found that the assessee had not furnished complete information regarding employees working for other GE entities, and that the LinkedIn profiles had a direct nexus with the question whether there was a permanent establishment and with the attribution exercise. The Tribunal further held that the material was not hearsay in the circumstances because it consisted of self-generated public-domain information relating to the employees themselves and could assist in arriving at the correct factual conclusion.

Conclusion: The LinkedIn profiles were admitted as additional evidence.

Issue (ii): Whether the whistleblower writ petition should be admitted as additional evidence.

Analysis: The Tribunal declined to admit the writ petition after considering the assessee's objection that the material had no probative value and had already been adversely dealt with by the High Court in connected proceedings. It held that the material was not necessary for the adjudication before it.

Conclusion: The whistleblower writ petition was not admitted.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding was disposed of only on the question of additional evidence, with one set of documents admitted and the other rejected, while the substantive appeals remained to be heard on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal may admit additional evidence at the appellate stage when it is relevant and necessary for deciding the factual issue in dispute and when its admission serves the cause of justice rather than filling a procedural gap.

---