P.N. Parashar, J.M. - (1.) THESE are two appeals by the same assesses against two different orders of learned CIT(A), both dt. 25th Feb., 2002, for asst. yr. 1997-98 and 1998-99.
(2.) Shri Pawan Kumar and Shri Pieyush Kaushik C.A.s appear on behalf of the assesses whereas Shri R.R. Prasad, Departmental Representative, represented the Department. The assessee has moved separate applications, for the two assessment years in question, both dt. 10th April, 2003, for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules 1963. The learned representative of the assessee Shri Pieyush Kaushik submitted that before the Departmental authorities the assessee had filed confirmations from the American Express Bank (Luxemborg), evidencing the factum of transfer of various remittances from this account to the account of Joakim Aim and Anita Pandeya with Citi Bank, Mumbai and Delhi. According to the learned counsel, this evidence was adduced to explain the investment made by the two persons but the Revenue authorities insisted for personal accounts of these persons with the banks overseas from where two funds have been transferred into India. It is submitted that these documents could not be procured and furnished before the Revenue authorities as they were not available with the assessee earlier and since documents have been received from the banks, the same are to be adduced in evidence.
(3.) THE learned counsel also submitted that the admission of additional evidence will cause no prejudice to the Department because the additional evidence sought to be admitted is only in support of the stand taken by the assessee. In support of the prayer made through the application reliance has been placed on the following decisions by the assessee : 1. K. Venkataramiah v. A Seetharama Reddy AIR 1967 SC 1526, 1530, and 2. Dwarika Prasad v. ITO (1998) 60 TTJ (Pat)(TM) 292 : (1997) 63 ITD 1 (TM)(Pat).;