Remand and additional evidence rules require merits-based consideration of Form-F and stock transfer proof on the existing record.

Upon remand, the assessing authority may consider material filed during the remanded proceedings, because the reassessment is exercised under original jurisdiction subject to the remand directions and need not be confined to the earlier record. Additional Form-F evidence filed in second appeal should be examined on merits where the reason for late production is apparent from the record, rather than rejected solely for being filed at the appellate stage. Stock transfer claims supported by vouchers, bilties and other material cannot be disallowed without addressing whether Form-F was mandatory for the relevant period and whether the existing record otherwise establishes the transfer; the matter therefore required fresh consideration on the existing record.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Form-C No. 1438166 and Form-F No. 390686 could be rejected in remand proceedings on the ground that they were not filed in the original assessment or before the first appellate authority; (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the additional Form-F evidence filed during the pendency of the second appeal; (iii) Whether stock transfers supported by vouchers, bilties and other material could be disallowed merely because Form-F was not produced, and whether the matter required reconsideration on that aspect.

Issue (i): Whether Form-C No. 1438166 and Form-F No. 390686 could be rejected in remand proceedings on the ground that they were not filed in the original assessment or before the first appellate authority?

Analysis: An order of remand by the first appellate authority restored the assessment proceedings to the assessing authority, which was required to proceed in exercise of its original jurisdiction, subject to the directions in the remand order. A form filed while those proceedings were pending could not be rejected merely because it was not part of the original assessment record, when the remand did not prohibit its consideration.

Conclusion: The rejection of Form-F No. 390686 could not be sustained, and the finding upholding that rejection was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the additional Form-F evidence filed during the pendency of the second appeal?

Analysis: The three Form-F documents were issued during the pendency of the second appeal and were placed before the Tribunal with an application under Section 12-B. The absence of a separately articulated explanation was not decisive where the reason for late filing was evident from the record itself. The Tribunal was required to examine the documents on their merits instead of rejecting them solely because they were filed for the first time at the appellate stage.

Conclusion: The rejection of the three Form-F documents as additional evidence was not justified.

Issue (iii): Whether stock transfers supported by vouchers, bilties and other material could be disallowed merely because Form-F was not produced, and whether the matter required reconsideration on that aspect?

Analysis: For the relevant assessment year, the assessee's case was that Form-F was not mandatory and that stock transfer could be established from other materials already on record. The Tribunal did not deal with the specific factual claim or the supporting documents in the manner required of the final fact-finding authority. That omission warranted fresh consideration of the stock transfer claim on the existing record.

Conclusion: The disallowance of the stock transfer claim on this ground could not be sustained, and the issue was remitted for reconsideration.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded to the extent that the Tribunal's order was set aside on the disputed evidentiary and stock transfer issues, and the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication on the existing record without permitting new evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Upon remand, the assessing authority may exercise the jurisdiction originally available to it subject to the remand directions, and appellate authorities must examine relevant evidence already on record where the statutory requirement relied upon is not shown to be mandatory for the relevant period.

---