86 Taxmann.com 137 (SC) 16. K. Venkataramaiah v. A. Setharam Reddy & Ors., 1963 AIR 1526 17. ITO vs. B.N. Bhattacharya

112 ITR 423High Court1978#4278 most cited

What is 86 Taxmann.com 137 (SC) 16. K. Venkataramaiah v. A. Setharam Reddy & Ors., 1963 AIR 1526 17. ITO vs. B.N. Bhattacharya authority for?

The Assessing Officer can admit additional evidence during assessment proceedings if it is necessary to determine the true total income of the assessee.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

ITO vs. B.N. Bhattacharya · 112 ITR 423 · section 142(1) · admission of additional evidence · genuineness of the transaction · total income

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 145(1)Section 147Section 148

Issues it is cited on

admission of additional evidencegenuineness of the transactionsection 142(1)indiatotal incomebusinesspersoncompanydocumentinterest

Judgments citing 86 Taxmann.com 137 (SC) 16. K. Venkataramaiah v. A. Setharam Reddy & Ors., 1963 AIR 1526 17. ITO vs. B.N. Bhattacharya

Sharad Kumar Saraf, Mumbai vs. ACIT 20(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2718/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Sharad Kumar Saraf Asst. Commissioner Of A-25, Midc Street No. 3, Income Tax-20(3), Vs. Marol Industrial Area, Mumbai. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093. Pan No. Aaips1238A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Rakesh Mohan& Ms. Shloka Shah, Ars Revenue By : Mr. Ram Tiwari, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/03/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Mohan& Ms. ShlokaFor Respondent: Mr. Ram Tiwari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 17(2)(iv)

…cribe circumstances under which, additional evidence could be admitted before the Tribunal. Also reliance is placed by them on the decision in CIT v. Kum. Satya Setia 143 ITR 486 (MP), UOP LLC v. Addl. DIT 108 ITD 186 (Delhi-ITAT) and ITO & Others reported in 112 ITR 423 (Cal). Thus it is submitted that the additional evidence submitted before the Tribunal are in form of supporting documents for the primary claim of the appellant that the credit card expenses were incurred for business purpose of the employer and fringe benefit tax on the same has already been paid by the employer. Therefore, the Ld. counsels sub…

M/S. Volvo India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1353/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumarm/S.Volvo India Private Limited, Yalachahally Village, Tavarakere Post, Hoskote, Bangalore – 562 122. Pan: Aaacv 6747N … Appellant Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltu, … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 234CSection 234DSection 92C

…in the case of R.S.S. Shanmugam Pillai & Sons v. CIT, [1974] 95 ITR 109 (Mad), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dalmia (R.) v. CIT, [1978] 113 ITR 522 (Del) and also the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of ITO v. Bhattacharya (B.N.), [1978] 112 ITR 423 (Cal), the Hon’ble Madras High Court had culled out the principle that discretion always lies with the Tribunal to admit the additional evidence in the interest of justice, once the Tribunal forms an opinion that it would be necessary to do so for adjudication of the matter. This can be done even when the application is filed by one of the partie…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Prem Anand, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3514/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…rest of justice something which remains obscure should be filled up so that it can pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. Such a case will be one for allowing additional evidence." The above judgment was followed in ITO v. B N Bhattacharya, 112 ITR 423 (Cal). 3.4 As, for an appellate authority, it is implicit in coming to a proper conclusion; it is for this reason that though the rules require new evidence to be admitted only where there is reason for the assessee for not being able to present such evidence before the AO, it is considered not only fair but justified, where the appellate aut…

Mohd. Suleman, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6491/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 6491/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Mohd. Suleman, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/O Anwar, H.No. 104, Shekhpur, Ward-1(4), Khichra Gulawati Road, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Clzps3936F Assessee By : Sh. Harsh Pandey, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Bedobani Choudhari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.09.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A), Ghaziabad.

For Appellant: Sh. Harsh Pandey, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Bedobani Choudhari, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 69A

…enable it to pronounce judgment', it still considers that in the interest of justice something which remains obscure should be filled up so that it can pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. The judgment was followed in ITO v. B N Bhattacharya, 112 ITR 423 (Cal). The Bombay High Court in Smt. Prabhavati S Shah's case (1998) 231 ITR 1 has stated that if prima facie an information evidence is necessary to examine the claim of the assessee, the CIT(A) should consider the necessary evidence in exercise of powers u/s 250(4) even if the case of the assessee does not fall within the four comers of the cir…

CIT vs. Text Hundred India Pvt Ltd

ITA - 2065 / 2010HC Delhi14 Jan 2011

…could straigthtaway reject the evidence, which was sought to be produced for the first time at the stage of the appeal." 12. We may also quote the following observations of Calcutta High Court in *Income-Tax Officer*, *Dist. III (I)* v. *B.N. Bhattacharya*, 112 ITR 423 (Cal.). In that case the Court even permitted the additional evidence before it at appellate stage where the question was as to whether the notice was properly served upon the assessee or not. Record of the process server and the Income-Tax Officer were produced and objection of the assessee that such evidence could not be produced was turned dow…

CIT vs. Text Hundred India Pvt Ltd

ITA - 2061 / 2010HC Delhi14 Jan 2011

…unal could straigthtaway reject the evidence, which was sought to be produced for the first time at the stage of the appeal." 12. We may also quote the following observations of Calcutta High Court in *Income-Tax Officer, Dist. III (I)* v. B.N. Bhattacharya, 112 ITR 423 (Cal.). In that case the Court even permitted the additional evidence before it at appellate stage where the question was as to whether the notice was properly served upon the assessee or not. Record of the process server and the Income-Tax Officer were produced and objection of the assessee that such evidence could not be produced was turned dow…

CIT vs. Text Hundred India Pvt Ltd

ITA - 2077 / 2010HC Delhi14 Jan 2011

…could straigthtaway reject the evidence, which was sought to be produced for the first time at the stage of the appeal.” 12. We may also quote the following observations of Calcutta High Court in Income-Tax Officer, Dist. III (I) v. B.N. Bhattacharya, 112 ITR 423 (Cal.). In that case the Court even permitted the additional evidence before it at appellate stage where the question was as to whether the notice was properly served upon the assessee or not. Record of the process server and the Income-Tax Officer were produced and objection of the assessee that such evidence could not be produced was tur…