TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 1083
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....015, we had summoned the said record. RELEVANT FACTS 4. A perusal of the Tribunal record reveals that the appellant had filed an application for admission of additional evidence in terms of Rule 29 of the Income-Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'ITAT Rules') on 14th January, 2019 after serving a copy of the same on the counsel for the Revenue, i.e., prior to commencement of final hearing before the Tribunal. On 17th January, 2019, the Tribunal concluded its hearing in the said appeal. Thereafter, on 22nd January, 2019, the appellant filed its synopsis/written submissions. On 28th February, 2019, the Tribunal passed the impugned order without dealing with the application filed by the appellant for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT rules. 5. After the impugned order had been passed by the Tribunal, the appellant preferred an application for rectification dated 8th May, 2019 under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The said application was heard and reserved for orders on 08th November, 2019. Thereafter, the matter was listed for clarification by the Tribunal and the o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court to hear and decide the present appeal till the Tribunal decides the rectification application. 10. He further submits that the appellant's application for production of additional evidence before the Tribunal was not maintainable as the conditions precedent mentioned in Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules are not attracted to the facts of the present case. In support of his submission, he relies upon the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rao Raja Hanut Singh, 2001 252 ITR 528 Raj, wherein it has been held as under:- "Thus, the only question which at best can be said to be raised for consideration before this court is whether for allowance or disallowance of a request for additional evidence to be produced before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is a question of law. Having given our thoughtful consideration, we are of the opinion that the law is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that production of additional evidence at the appellate stage is not matter of right to the litigating party but within the discretion of the court which is to be exercised judiciously. The question whether the discretion has be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scribed under Section 254(2), filed the rectification application on 8th May, 2019. In the said application for rectification order had been reserved by the Tribunal on 8th November, 2019 and thereafter again on 9th October, 2020. However, as no order has been pronounced till date and the last date for filing the declaration under the amnesty scheme being Vivad se Vishwas Scheme (under which the appellant may get waiver of penalty and interest) is 31st December, 2020, the appellant, in order to avoid being prejudiced, has filed the present appeal. 16. It is settled law that in the absence of anything showing mala fide or deliberate delay as a dilatory tactic, the court should normally condone the delay as the intent of the court is always to promote substantial justice. [See: Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr v. Mst. Katiji and Others (1987) 2 SCC 107 & N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy: 1998 (7) SCC 123]. 17. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. SCOPE OF SECTIONS 254(2) AND 260A OF THE ACT ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT AND IT CANNOT BE SAID IN LAW THAT THEY ARE PARALLEL OR MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE PROCEEDINGS 18. This Court is also in agreement wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed by the Tribunal, there is no reference to either the additional documents placed on record by the appellant or to the written submissions/synopsis filed by the appellant. To hold that the additional evidence filed by the appellant had been considered by the Tribunal would be to presume and assume certain facts which are not apparent from the record. AS THE APPELLANT HAD ADMITTEDLY FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN TERMS OF RULE 29 OF THE ITAT RULES PRIOR TO THE DATE OF FINAL HEARING, IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER THE SAID APPLICATION BEFORE PROCEEDING AHEAD WITH THE FINAL HEARING 22. This Court is further of the opinion that as the appellant had admittedly filed an application for admission of additional evidence in terms of Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules prior to the date of final hearing, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to consider the said application before proceeding ahead with the final hearing. 23. The Supreme Court in the case of Jyotsna Suri Vs. ITAT (supra) set aside the order of the High Court and remanded the matter back to the file of the Tribunal to decide the application under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules and thereafte....