CIT v. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd.

351 ITR 57High Court2013#1283 most cited

What is CIT v. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

The Tribunal has the discretion to admit additional evidence, even if filed by a party, when it deems it necessary for proper adjudication and to achieve substantial justice. This power can be exercised in the interest of justice.

88

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd. · 351 ITR 57 · admission of additional evidence · ITAT Rule 29 · discretion of Tribunal · interest of justice · substantial justice · proper adjudication · appellate authority power to admit evidence · additional evidence CIT(A)

Sections most often in play

Section 153CSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 132Section 147Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 131(1A)

Issues it is cited on

retraction of statementsection 158bb(1)section 131(1a)section 158bbadmission of additional evidencesection 153c(1)section 34section 292bblock periodloose paperssection 132(1)section 153b

Judgments citing CIT v. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd.

SRI BALAGOPALAN JEWELLERYMART ,SOUTH AVANI MOOLA STREET, MADURAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIR 3(3) CHENNAI, INVESTIGATION BUILDING, CHENNAI

In the result, the captioned appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 3946/CHNY/2025[2020-2021]Status: FixedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

…mission of the present additional evidences before the AO or Id.CIT(A) were not wilful nor intentional. In this regard it is apposite to refer the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case CIT v. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd., (2013) 351 ITR 57 wherein at Para-13 of the Judgment, it was held that Rule 29 enables the Tribunal to admit any additional evidence which would be necessary to do substantial justice in the matter. Their Lordships further observed that the various procedures, including that relating to filing of additional evidence, is a handmade of justice and justice should not…

TAFSEER AHMAD,LUCKNOW vs. DDIT/ADIT(INTL TAX)LKN, LUCKNOW

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

ITA 517/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

…despite the Appellant establishing sufficient cause for non-production before the AO, being stationed abroad and preoccupied with medical exigencies. The rejection militates against principles of natural justice. Reliance: CIT v. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd. (351 ITR 57): "Technicalities should not defeat substantive justice; additional evidence may be admitted when sufficient cause is shown." 6. Additions made without adherence to CBDT Guidelines: The additions disregard CBDT's Standard Operating Procedure issued during demonetization, which mandates verification of books and historical patterns before invoking…

M/S PARASNATH FUELS (P) LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 213/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalparasnath Fuels Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Circle 1(1), 28 Feet Road, Dehradun Vikas Nagar, Vs Dehradun - 248198 Pan-Aaicp2190D Assessee Revenue Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Jcit Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am, This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appellate Centre [Cit(A), In Short], Dated 08.10.2024 In Appeal No. Nfac/2016-17/10104734 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dt. 08.10.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Assumption Of Jurisdiction In Initiating The Proceedings U/S 147 & Passing The Impugned Order U/S 147/144B & That Too Without Complying With Mandatory Conditions U/S 147 To 151A Parasnath Fuels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit

Section 115BSection 147Section 234ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Parasnath Fuels Pvt. Ltd., The DCIT, Circle 1(1), 28 Feet Road, Dehradun Vikas Nagar, Vs Dehradun - 248198 PAN-AAICP2190D Assessee Revenue Assessee by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue by Sh. Amar Pal Singh, JCIT SR. DR Date of Hearing 11.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.11.2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM, This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appellate Centre [CIT(A), in short], dated 08.10.2024…

ASHISH KALRA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA

ITA 4309/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.4309/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2009-10) Mr. Ashish Kalra Acit, C-3/313, Mig Flats, Janakpuri, Central Circle-4, New Delhi-110058. Vs. New Delhi. Pan-Aippk0526N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/10/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 28.01.2019 In Appeal No. 159/2016-17 & 3/2017-18 For Asst. Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively, Both Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’). 2. Since, Both The Appeals Are Having Identical Issues, Therefore, They Are Adjudicated By A Common Order. First We Take Up The Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 In Ita No.4308/Del/2019. Ashish Kalra Vs. Acit

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 251

…para 3.26). CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that these evidences were filed before CIT(A) only pursuant to his inquiry u/s 250(4) of the Act. He has erred in not even examining the relevancy of these evidences to the issue in despite (refer Text Hundred 351 ITR 57(Del) copy enclosed at pages 424 to 436 of PB-relevant at para 14). Moreover, no separate interlocutory order is passed by CIT(A) rejecting admission of additional evidence which is mandatory (refer Jyotsna Suri 128 taxman 33(SC)-copy enclosed at pages 437 to 438 of PB. In absence of any direct evidence being lead by M/s Bright Group, it was impera…

ASHISH KALRA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA

ITA 4308/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.4309/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2009-10) Mr. Ashish Kalra Acit, C-3/313, Mig Flats, Janakpuri, Central Circle-4, New Delhi-110058. Vs. New Delhi. Pan-Aippk0526N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/10/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 28.01.2019 In Appeal No. 159/2016-17 & 3/2017-18 For Asst. Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively, Both Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’). 2. Since, Both The Appeals Are Having Identical Issues, Therefore, They Are Adjudicated By A Common Order. First We Take Up The Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 In Ita No.4308/Del/2019. Ashish Kalra Vs. Acit

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 251

…para 3.26). CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that these evidences were filed before CIT(A) only pursuant to his inquiry u/s 250(4) of the Act. He has erred in not even examining the relevancy of these evidences to the issue in despite (refer Text Hundred 351 ITR 57(Del) copy enclosed at pages 424 to 436 of PB-relevant at para 14). Moreover, no separate interlocutory order is passed by CIT(A) rejecting admission of additional evidence which is mandatory (refer Jyotsna Suri 128 taxman 33(SC)-copy enclosed at pages 437 to 438 of PB. In absence of any direct evidence being lead by M/s Bright Group, it was impera…

BALAJI,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-22(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1279/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.A. Suraj Nahar, CA
Section 148Section 69A

…o evidences and proceed to adjudicate the issue relating to addition of ₹10 lakhs u/s.69A of the Act. For such a course of action, we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Text Hundred India (P) Ltd., reported in [2013] 351 ITR 57 (Del) and also the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Indian Express (Madurai) (P.) Ltd., reported in [1983] 140 ITR 705 (Mad). The Ld.AR of the assessee drawing our attention to Page No.7 of Paper Mr.Balaji :: 7 :: Book [i.e. FD statement from 09.11.2016 to 18.08.2025 found placed at Page No.7-11 of the Paper Book]…

SUKETU RAMESH JHAVERI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PIRAMAL CHAMBER MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5441/MUM/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025

Bench: BEFORESHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S. (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhattFor Respondent: ShriArun Kanti Datta- CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 69A

…dditional documents are compiled at pages 200 to 338 of the APB. 5. In support of this contention, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT-IV v. Text Hundred India (P) Ltd. 4 Suketu Ramesh Jhaveri [(2013) 351 ITR 57 (Del)], particularly paragraph 13 of the judgment, which is reproduced below: - “13. The aforesaid case law clearly lays down a neat principle of law that discretion lies with the Tribunal to admit additional evidence in the interest of justice once the Tribunal affirms the opinion that doing so would be necessary for proper adjudication of the m…

BIRLA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 3907/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2011-12
Section 115JSection 132Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 276CSection 37(1)

…of available facts, however, admission of additional evidence\nmay help to pronounce its judgment in a \"more satisfactory manner\".\n\nb) The Appellant also relies on ruling of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court\nin the case of CIT vs. Text Hundred India (P) Ltd. (351 ITR 57 (Delhi))\nwherein it was held that the tribunal has the power to admit additional\nevidence in its discretion if it was necessary to do substantial justice.\n\n4. By way of this application, the Appellant seeks the permission of the\nHon'ble Bench under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules to place on record\nadditional evidence.\n\n5. In the event the Hon'b…

ACE CABS LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), DELHI, C R BUILDING

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanace Cabs Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1 (2), 562, Silver Oak Lane, Delhi. M.G. Road, Ghitorni, Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaica4494R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 12.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Submitted An Application Under Rule 29 Of The Itat Rules For Admitting The Additional Evidences & The Contents Thereof Are Reproduced Below:-

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…igh Court and remand the matter back to the High Court for fresh disposal of I. T. A. No. 109 of 2005, after accepting the documents that were/may be filed by the appellants.” 8 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd.: 351 ITR 57(Del HC) observed the following: “13……It is well-settled that the procedure is handmade of justice and justice should not be allowed to be choked only because of some inadvertent error or omission on the part of one of the parties to lead evidence at the appropriate stage. Once it is found that the party intending to lead evidence before the Tribun…

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 987/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…e present additional evidences before the AO or CIT(A) were not willful nor intentional. In this regard the appellant respectfully relies upon the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case CIT v. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd., (2013) 351 ITR 57 wherein at Para-13 of the Judgment, it was held that Rule 29 enables the Tribunal to admit any additional evidence which would be necessary to do substantial justice in the matter. Their Lordships further observed that the various procedures, including that relating to filing of additional evidence, is a handmade of justice and justice should not…

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

ITA 986/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sri T.M. Shivakumar

…esent\nadditional evidences before the AO or CIT(A) were not willful nor\nintentional. In this regard the appellant respectfully relies upon the\nratio of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case\nCIT v. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd., (2013) 351 ITR 57 wherein at\nPara-13 of the Judgment, it was held that Rule 29 enables the\nTribunal to admit any additional evidence which would be\nnecessary to do substantial justice in the matter. Their Lordships\nfurther observed that the various procedures, including that\nrelating to filing of additional evidence, is a handmade of justice\nand justice shoul…

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

ITA 985/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

…esent\nadditional evidences before the AO or CIT(A) were not willful nor\nintentional. In this regard the appellant respectfully relies upon the\nratio of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case\nCIT v. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd., (2013) 351 ITR 57 wherein at\nPara-13 of the Judgment, it was held that Rule 29 enables the\nTribunal to admit any additional evidence which would be\nnecessary to do substantial justice in the matter. Their Lordships\nfurther observed that the various procedures, including that\nrelating to filing of additional evidence, is a handmade of justice\nand justice shoul…

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

ITA 984/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

…esent\nadditional evidences before the AO or CIT(A) were not willful nor\nintentional. In this regard the appellant respectfully relies upon the\nratio of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case\nCIT v. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd., (2013) 351 ITR 57 wherein at\nPara-13 of the Judgment, it was held that Rule 29 enables the\nTribunal to admit any additional evidence which would be\nnecessary to do substantial justice in the matter. Their Lordships\nfurther observed that the various procedures, including that\nrelating to filing of additional evidence, is a handmade of justice\nand justice shoul…

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

ITA 983/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

…esent\nadditional evidences before the AO or CIT(A) were not willful nor\nintentional. In this regard the appellant respectfully relies upon the\nratio of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case\nCIT v. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd., (2013) 351 ITR 57 wherein at\nPara-13 of the Judgment, it was held that Rule 29 enables the\nTribunal to admit any additional evidence which would be\nnecessary to do substantial justice in the matter. Their Lordships\nfurther observed that the various procedures, including that\nrelating to filing of additional evidence, is a handmade of justice\nand justice shoul…

M/S. JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

ITA 982/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

…esent\nadditional evidences before the AO or CIT(A) were not willful nor\nintentional. In this regard the appellant respectfully relies upon the\nratio of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case\nCIT v. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd., (2013) 351 ITR 57 wherein at\nPara-13 of the Judgment, it was held that Rule 29 enables the\nTribunal to admit any additional evidence which would be\nnecessary to do substantial justice in the matter. Their Lordships\nfurther observed that the various procedures, including that\nrelating to filing of additional evidence, is a handmade of justice\nand justice shoul…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE1-(1), BENGALURU vs. MS. JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

ITA 962/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

…e present additional evidences before the AO or CIT(A) were not willful nor intentional. In this regard the appellant respectfully relies upon the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case CIT v. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd., (2013) 351 ITR 57 wherein at Para-13 of the Judgment, it was held that Rule 29 enables the Tribunal to admit any additional evidence which would be necessary to do substantial justice in the matter. Their Lordships further observed that the various procedures, including that relating to filing of additional evidence, is a handmade of justice and justice should not…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. MS. JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

ITA 961/BANG/2023[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024

…esent\nadditional evidences before the AO or CIT(A) were not willful nor\nintentional. In this regard the appellant respectfully relies upon the\nratio of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case\nCIT v. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd., (2013) 351 ITR 57 wherein at\nPara-13 of the Judgment, it was held that Rule 29 enables the\nTribunal to admit any additional evidence which would be\nnecessary to do substantial justice in the matter. Their Lordships\nfurther observed that the various procedures, including that\nrelating to filing of additional evidence, is a handmade of justice\nand justice shoul…

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 847/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…e present additional evidences before the AO or CIT(A) were not willful nor intentional. In this regard the appellant respectfully relies upon the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case CIT v. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd., (2013) 351 ITR 57 wherein at Para-13 of the Judgment, it was held that Rule 29 enables the Tribunal to admit any additional evidence which would be necessary to do substantial justice in the matter. Their Lordships further observed that the various procedures, including that relating to filing of additional evidence, is a handmade of justice and justice should not…

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

ITA 846/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

…e present additional evidences before the AO or CIT(A) were not willful nor intentional. In this regard the appellant respectfully relies upon the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case CIT v. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd., (2013) 351 ITR 57 wherein at Para-13 of the Judgment, it was held that Rule 29 enables the Tribunal to admit any additional evidence which would be necessary to do substantial justice in the matter. Their Lordships further observed that the various procedures, including that relating to filing of additional evidence, is a handmade of justice and justice should not…

JOHN DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 845/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…e present additional evidences before the AO or CIT(A) were not willful nor intentional. In this regard the appellant respectfully relies upon the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case CIT v. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd., (2013) 351 ITR 57 wherein at Para-13 of the Judgment, it was held that Rule 29 enables the Tribunal to admit any additional evidence which would be necessary to do substantial justice in the matter. Their Lordships further observed that the various procedures, including that relating to filing of additional evidence, is a handmade of justice and justice should not…

Showing 1–20 of 88 · Page 1 of 5

CIT v. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd. (351 ITR 57) — Cited in 88 Judgments | BharatTax