Mrs. Jyotsna Suri v. DCIT

61 ITD 139Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1997#14311 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 250Section 46ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 133(6)

Issues it is cited on

admission of additional evidencerule 46asection 25total incomedocumentsection 250nfacsection 14businessinterest

Judgments citing Mrs. Jyotsna Suri v. DCIT

Trigat Life Sciences Private Limited, Lucknow vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -6, Lucknow

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

ITA 190/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Trigat Life Sciences Private Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 301, 3Rd Floor, Kusum Deep Income Tax-6, Lucknow New Complex Chowk, Lucknow, U.P. Pan:Aacct7404N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 27.02.2025, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Dcit, Circle-6, Lucknow, Under Section 143(3) On 27.11.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order, Which Is Unlawful, Unjustified & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order Without Giving Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard. 3. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order With Intangible Addition Of 50 Percent Sales Promotion Expenses Of Rs 7188348 On Estimated Basis. 4. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing Assessment Order Which Is Contrary To The Facts & Law.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

…clear that no attempt was made before the ld. AO or shows no regard to follow the requirement of Rule 46A, the additional evidence could not be admitted. Furthermore, he pointed out that the Hon’ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Mrs. Jyotsna Suri vs. DCIT (1997) 61 ITD 139, had held an assessee could not adduce additional evidence before the appellate authority as a matter of right and the ld. CIT(A) was justified in refusing to entertain additional evidence, if they had not been produced before the ld. AO. The ld. CIT(A) also quoted from the orders of A.K. Babu Khan vs. CWT (1976) 102 ITR 757 (Andhra Pradesh), the…

Pinkeshmumar Melapchand Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(2)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 599/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13 Pinkeshkumar Melapchand Shah The Ito, Ward-2(2)(4) B-1, 1St Floor, Abhinandan Flat Vs. Ahmedabad. Opp: Kothari Tower Ramnagar, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad 380005.Gujarat. Pan : Aeaps 0609 D. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Sunil Maloo, Ca Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/08/2025

For Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

…ucing the said evidence before the AO despite repeated opportunities. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on judicial precedents including CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [19 ITR 191 (SC)], T.N. Subash Thangam v. ITO [156 taxmann.com 732 (Madras HC)], and Jyotsna Suri v. DCIT [61 ITD 139 (ITAT Delhi)] to conclude that the onus was on the assessee to establish the source of the cash deposits and to furnish supporting material at the appropriate stage. Consequently, the addition under section 69A was sustained, and the appeal was dismissed. 3. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising following g…

Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

ITA 326/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Completion Of Assessment By Passing A Speaking Order.

For Appellant: Shri S.L.Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 1Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 45

…o attempt was made before the AO or shows no regard to follow the requirement of Rule 46A, the additional evidence administered. It may not be out of place to mention here that the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Mrs. Jyotsna Suri Vs DCIT (1997) reported in 61 ITD 139 has held that an assessee cannot adduce additional evidence before Appellate Authority as a matter of right. The CIT (A) is justified in refusing to entertain additional evidence sought to be produced by an assessee which they failed to produce before the AO. In the case of Velgi Deoraj and Co vs. CIT reported in [1968] 68 ITR 708 (Bombay) [13-09-…

Lumis Biotech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 7(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2128/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh ShahFor Respondent: ShriManoj Kumar Sinha (SR.DR.)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35

…made before the AO or shows no regard to follow the requirement of Rule 46A, the additional evidence could not be administered. It may not be out of place to mention here that the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Mrs. Jyotsna Suri Vs DCIT (1997) reported in 61 ITD 139 has held that an assessee cannot adduce additional evidence before Appellate Authority as a matter of right. The CIT (A) is justified in refusing to entertain additional evidence sought to be produced by an assessee which they failed to produce before the AO.” 5. We have reviewed the opposing submission and considered the documents available in t…

JCIT Spl. Range-12, New Delhi vs. Arihanta Industries, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 963/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 131Section 68Section 801CSection 80I

…erred in admitting the additional evidence by holding that the same go to the very root of the matter in adjudicating the grounds of the appeal which is sharp contrast to the ratio decidendi of the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of Jotsna Suri Vs DCIT (1997) 61 ITD 139 (Del) that the mere fact that the evidence sought to be produced does not constitute sufficient cause to allow its admission at the appellate and it is for the party seeking to adduce additional evidence to go without 4 corners of Rule 46A, which in the present case the assessee has failed to do and the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to take cognizance of…

Mohd. Imran, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2(3), Ghaziabad

ITA 6741/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S. Sainiassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mohd. Imran vs ITO Saurav Gupta & Associates, Ward 2(3) C-12/114, 1st Floor, D.B. Plaza, Ghaziabad. Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. PAN No. AASPI9611B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by Sh. Saubhagya Aggarwal, Adv. Sh. Saurav Gupta, Adv. Revenue by Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 10.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement 25.04.2019 ORDER This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) Ghaziabad dated 25.07.2018 for AY 2010-11. 2. The bri…

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Space Age Research & Technology Foundation Charitable Trust, Meerut

In the result Ground No. 1 and 3 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed and ground No

ITA 4622/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Space Age Research & Vs. Circle-2, Meerut Technology Foundation, Charitable Trust, Railway Road, Meerut Pan: Aabts7321M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 13(2)Section 13(3)Section 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACIT, Space Age Research & Vs. Circle-2, Meerut Technology Foundation, Charitable Trust, Railway Road, Meerut PAN: AABTS7321M (Appellant) (Respondent) CO No. 448/Del/2012 Space Age Research & Technology ACIT, Foundation, Charitable Trust, Circle-2, Meerut Railway Road, Meerut PAN: AABTS7321M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Sanjeev Sapra, Adv Revenue by: Sh. SS Rana, CIT DR Date of Hearing 02/05/2017 Date of pronouncement 23/05/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHA…

Mrs. Jyotsna Suri v. DCIT (61 ITD 139) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax