Additional evidence and unexplained credits: appellate admission is limited, and surrounding facts can support undisclosed-income findings.

Additional evidence in appeal may be admitted only where the appellate authority requires it to decide the matter or where some other substantial cause is shown; it is not enough that the material is merely relevant, and a party cannot use appeal to cure omissions from the original record. The note also discusses unexplained credits in a non-resident account, stating that surrounding circumstances, inconsistent explanations, lack of supporting proof, and indicators such as absence of repayment or interest can support an inference that the entry represents undisclosed income rather than a genuine remittance.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal rightly refused to admit the bank certificate tendered as additional evidence in appeal; and (ii) whether there was evidence on record to support the finding that Rs. 95,483 credited in the non-resident's account was the assessee's income from an undisclosed source.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal rightly refused to admit the bank certificate tendered as additional evidence in appeal.

Analysis: The power to admit additional evidence at the appellate stage is controlled by the appellate body's need for that evidence to pronounce judgment or by some other substantial cause. The right to adduce further evidence does not arise merely because the material is relevant or important. A party cannot, after failing to produce available evidence at the proper stage, seek a second opportunity to patch up omissions in appeal. On the facts, the Tribunal found no necessity for the certificate and no inherent lacuna requiring cure.

Conclusion: The refusal to admit the additional evidence was justified and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether there was evidence on record to support the finding that Rs. 95,483 credited in the non-resident's account was the assessee's income from an undisclosed source.

Analysis: The record showed that, except for the disputed year, remittances from the foreign party matched the price of goods supplied, whereas in the relevant year an unexplained excess amount was credited. The assessee's explanations were inconsistent and unsupported. The affidavit relied on did not explain how the credit arose or establish actual remittance from abroad. The surrounding circumstances, including exchange restrictions, the absence of repayment, and the absence of interest, were relevant material supporting an inference that the entry did not reflect a genuine remittance.

Conclusion: There was sufficient evidence to sustain the finding that the sum represented the assessee's concealed income, and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the Revenue, the assessee failed on both questions, and the department was awarded costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Additional evidence in appeal can be admitted only when the appellate authority requires it for decision or other substantial cause, and unexplained cash credits in a third-party account may be treated as the assessee's undisclosed income where the surrounding circumstances and on-record material support that inference.

---