2025 (4) TMI 666 - HC - Income Tax

ITAT's rejection of additional evidence application under Rule 29 overturned for failing to consider merits

Manoj Kumar Jain Versus Income Tax Officer - 2 (2) Bhilai, Chhattisgarh.

The HC set aside ITAT's rejection of an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules. The court held that ITAT committed ... Rejection of application for admission of additional evidence by ITAT - HELD THAT:- As in light of the parameters laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court and also keeping in view the order passed by this Court in Shrivastava Associates [2025 (4) TMI 611 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] it is quite vivid that the ITAT was greatly influenced with the fact that application for additional evidence was not made either before the AO or CIT (Appeals) and rejected the said application without considering the fact as to whether the documents filed by the assessee are required for just and proper disposal of the appeal in light of Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules. ITAT has committed grave legal error in rejecting the application summarily and dismissing the appeal. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the application filed under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules is set aside and subsequently, the appellate order dated 08.10.2024 is also set aside. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal question considered by the Court was whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was justified in rejecting the application for admission of additional evidence filed by the appellant under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, with the finding being alleged as perverse to the record.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant legal framework and precedentsRule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, governs the production of additional evidence before the Tribunal. It states that parties are not entitled to produce additional evidence unless the Tribunal requires it for passing orders or if the income-tax authorities have decided the case without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to adduce evidence. This rule is akin to Order 41 Rule 27(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which allows the appellate court to admit additional evidence if it is necessary to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause.Precedents from the Privy Council in Parsotim Thakur v. Lal Mohar Thakur and the Bombay High Court in Velji Deoraj & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax emphasize that the admission of additional evidence is contingent on the requirement of the court, not on the parties' desires. The Supreme Court in Jagdish Prasad Patel v. Shivnath reiterated that additional evidence should be allowed only in exceptional circumstances and is not a right of the parties.Court's interpretation and reasoningThe Court interpreted Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules as requiring the Tribunal to consider whether the additional evidence is necessary for the just and proper disposal of the appeal. The Tribunal's decision to reject the application for additional evidence was found to be influenced by the fact that the application was not made before the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Court found this reasoning flawed as it did not consider whether the evidence was necessary for resolving the appeal.Key evidence and findingsThe appellant's application for additional evidence was crucial for the appeal's resolution, as the documents were deemed necessary for a just and proper disposal. The ITAT's failure to consider the necessity of these documents constituted a legal error.Application of law to factsThe Court applied the principles from relevant precedents to determine that the ITAT erred in its application of Rule 29. The Tribunal should have evaluated whether the additional evidence was required to resolve the appeal rather than dismissing it based on procedural grounds.Treatment of competing argumentsThe appellant argued that the additional evidence was essential for the appeal's resolution, citing the decision in Shrivastava Associates v. Income Tax Officer. The respondent supported the ITAT's decision, arguing for dismissal. The Court sided with the appellant, emphasizing the necessity of the additional evidence for a fair judgment.ConclusionsThe Court concluded that the ITAT committed a grave legal error by rejecting the application for additional evidence without considering its necessity for the appeal's resolution. Consequently, the ITAT's order was set aside, and the appeal was restored for fresh hearing and disposal in accordance with the law.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held that the ITAT erred in rejecting the application for additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules without assessing its necessity for the appeal's resolution. The decision emphasized that additional evidence should be admitted if it is required for a just and proper disposal of the appeal.Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoningThe Court noted: 'The ITAT has committed grave legal error in rejecting the application summarily and dismissing the appeal.'Core principles establishedThe judgment reinforced the principle that the admission of additional evidence in appellate proceedings is contingent upon the necessity for a fair resolution of the case, rather than procedural technicalities.Final determinations on each issueThe substantial question of law was answered in favor of the appellant, and the appeal was allowed to the extent indicated. The application for additional evidence and the appeal were restored for fresh hearing and disposal, with the parties bearing their own costs.