1. The Appellate Tribunal admitted additional evidence when the appeal was pending before it; and the questions referred to us canvass the correctness of the action of the Appellate Tribunal. The first question referred is :
' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the principle that subsequent events can be taken into consideration by a court in granting relief to parties is applicable in the matter of assessment of the tea income of the company under the Agricultural Income-tax Act '
2. We do not extract the second question, because we feel that the result of the second question will depend upon the answer we give to the first question.
3. The question is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to admit additional evidence regarding a subsequent event. We think that the Tribunal has jurisdiction. If any authority is required for the purpose, the decision of the Supreme Court in Anglo-American Direct Tea Trading Co. v. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax,  69 I.T.R. 667 (S.C.).may be referred to, We mayalso point out that regulation 25 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Regulations, 1965, provides for admission of additional evidence by the Tribunal. The present case will come directly under regulation 25(1)(b). For this reason also the action of the Tribunal was right.
4. The first question referred to us, therefore, is answered in the affirmative--against the department and in favour of the assessee. In view of this answer, the second question does not arise and we do not answer that question. In the circumstances, we do not pass any order regarding costs. A copy of this judgment will be sent to the Tribunal as required by law.