IN THE DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN & SANJEEV NARULA, JJ.
HL Malhotra & Company (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
ITA No. 211/2020 & CM Appls. No. 32045-32047/2020
22 December, 2020
Appellant by: Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Aniket D. Agrawal, Advocates.
Respondent by: Raghvendra Singh, SSC
The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. On 17-2-2020, this Court had admitted the appeal on the following question of law :--
Whether the Tribunal erred in law in failing to adjudicate upon the admissibility and consider the additional evidence furnished by the appellant under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules?
3. As learned standing counsel for the respondent, on the last date of hearing, had stated that this Court cannot decide the aforesaid issue without examining the record of the Tribunal in appellant s statutory appeal being ITA No. 3613/Del/2015, we had summoned the said record.
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 14-1-2019 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 17-1-2019, the Tribunal concluded its hearing in the said appeal. Thereafter, on 22-1-2019, the appellant filed its synopsis/written submissions. On 28-2-2019, 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.