Court denies appellant's claims, rejects additional evidence. Appeal favors Revenue, no costs awarded.

The court ruled against the appellant on all issues. The application for admission of additional evidence was denied, finding no injustice caused by the Tribunal's reliance on the documents. The appellant's claim for exemption under Section 54F was rejected due to non-compliance with mandatory conditions. The allegation of infringement of natural justice principles was dismissed, as the appellant had the opportunity to address all issues during the hearing. The appeal was decided in favor of the Revenue, with no costs awarded to either party.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963.
2. Denial of exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Alleged infringement of principles of natural justice by the Tribunal.

Detailed Analysis:

The First Question: Application for Admission of Additional Evidence

1. The appellant filed an appeal against the Assessment Order dated 26th December 2008, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 7th July 2011. During the appeal before the Tribunal, the appellant submitted an application on 9th July 2012 for the admission of additional evidence.

2. The appellant argued that the additional evidence, which included various certificates, letters, and a sketch plan, was fundamental to meet the ends of justice. The Tribunal, however, did not pass a separate order on the application to admit additional evidence but used the documents to decide against the appellant.

3. The appellant contended that the Tribunal should have first passed an order on the application, either allowing or rejecting it with reasons. The Tribunal's failure to do so was argued to be a serious error causing grave prejudice.

4. The Tribunal's approach was challenged, with the appellant relying on the provisions of Rules 18 and 29 of the ITAT Rules, which outline the procedure for submitting and admitting additional evidence.

5. The Tribunal's reliance on the additional documents without a formal order was argued to be perverse and procedurally incorrect. However, the court found that the Tribunal did not commit any error as the appellant was allowed to make submissions based on the additional documents, and no injustice was caused.

6. The court answered the first question in the negative, favoring the Revenue and against the appellant.

The Second Question: Denial of Exemption under Section 54F

1. The appellant argued that he had invested a significant amount towards the construction of new flats before the due date for filing the return under Section 139(4) of the Act and should be entitled to the exemption under Section 54F.

2. The appellant contended that Section 54F(4) should be read as a proviso to Section 54F(1), allowing the benefit of exemption if the investment was made before the due date for filing the return under Section 139(1).

3. The appellant relied on various judgments to support his argument that the word "shall" in Section 54F(4) is directory and not mandatory, and that the interpretation should be beneficial to the assessee.

4. The court, however, found that the appellant did not comply with the mandatory conditions of Section 54F, particularly the requirement to deposit the unutilized amount in a specified account before the due date under Section 139(1).

5. The court referred to the judgment in Humayun Suleman Merchant, which held that the consequences of not depositing the amount in the specified account are clear and cannot be ignored.

6. The court answered the second question in the affirmative, favoring the Revenue and against the appellant.

The Third Question: Alleged Infringement of Principles of Natural Justice

1. The appellant argued that the Tribunal infringed the principles of natural justice by not providing an opportunity to rebut the conclusions based on Circular No.495 dated 22nd September 1987.

2. The court found that the Tribunal referred to the circular only to clarify the requirement of depositing the amount before the due date under Section 139(1). Since the appellant did not comply with this requirement, the question of being affected by the circular did not arise.

3. The court noted that the appellant had argued the appeal entirely and had the opportunity to address the additional documents during the hearing. The procedure followed by the Tribunal did not cause any injustice to the appellant.

4. The court answered the third question in the negative, favoring the Revenue and against the appellant.

Conclusion:
The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs, and all questions were answered in favor of the Revenue and against the appellant.

---