Satya Devi vs Commissioner of Income Tax and Another

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—This is the assessee''s appeal u/s 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1990-91. The assessee viz. Muni Lal Goel, the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellant had filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 31,240/-. On examination of the matter the Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs. 12,000/- on account of household expenses. Another amount of Rs. 1,64.500/- was added on account of unexplained investment in the capital account of the assessee. Aggrieved by he order the assessee filed an appeal which was dismissed. The second appeal before the Tribunal also met with the same fete. Hence the present appeal.

Mr. Mittal, learned counsel for the appellant contends that gifts worth Rs. 1,64,500/- had been received from persons staying abroad. The amount was received through different bank drafts. It was deposited in the account of the assessee. Thus, there was no reason for the addition to be made.

The matter has been considered at three different levels in the Department. The Income Tax Officer, the appellate authority as well as the Tribunal have come to a concurrent rinding against the assessee. It is based on appreciation of evidence produced by the assessee. It is on examination of the evidence that the additions had been upheld. No question of law much less than a substantial question of law arises for consideration.

Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of their Lordships of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi (Central-2) Vs. Mrs. Sunita Vachani, to contend that even strangers can make gifts There is no quarrel with this proposition. A gift can be made by any one. However, the final decision has to be taken on consideration of all relevant facts. The appellant can derive no advantage from the above decision.

Lastly, it has been contended that the appellant had moved an application under Rule 29 for permission to lead additional evidence. Learned counsel has referred to the provision of Rule 29 of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 to contend that the application for permission to lead additional evidence had been wrongly rejected by the Tribunal.

The provision undoubtedly contemplates that additional evidence can be considered. However, it has been specifically provided that a party to an appeal "shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence either oral or documentary before the Tribunal". It is only when "the Tribunal requires any document to be produced or any evidence to be examined or an affidavit to be filed" that the permission can be granted. This too only when the production of such evidence is necessary to enable the Tribunal "to pass orders or for any other substantial cause". Thus, additional evidence has not to be allowed as a matter of course. It is only when the prescribed para-meters are met with that the permission can be granted, it is undoubtedly true that the permission to lead additional evidence can also be granted when the authorities have decided the case "without sufficient opportunity to the assessee". However, in the present case nothing has been pointed out to show that sufficient opportunity had not been granted to the assessee. Thus, the contention is rejected.

No other point has been raised.

In view of the above, we find no ground to interfere. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.

Sd/- Ashutosh Mohunta, J.