New factual contention after remand cannot be raised without evidence where Tribunal properly refuses discretion to reopen the record.

The Tribunal was justified in refusing to permit the assessee to raise, for the first time after remand, a new factual contention that the remitted moneys were not his own and in declining to take additional evidence on that question. The proposed plea depended on facts that could not be decided on the existing record, and the Tribunal had jurisdiction to reject further evidence as a proper exercise of discretion. No interference was warranted with that refusal, especially because acceptance of the new contention would have rendered the earlier remand unnecessary. The ruling therefore remained against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing to permit the assessee to raise a new contention that the remitted moneys were not his moneys and in declining to take further evidence on that question.

Analysis: The contention sought to be raised involved questions of fact which could not be decided on the existing record without further evidence. The Tribunal had jurisdiction to refuse permission to adduce additional evidence, and there was no reason to interfere with that exercise of discretion. The new plea had been taken for the first time when the matter returned to the Tribunal after remand, and acceptance of it would have made the earlier remand unnecessary.

Conclusion: The refusal to entertain the new contention was upheld and the decision stood against the assessee.

---