Ram Prasad Sharma v. CIT

119 ITR 867High Court1979#7634 most cited

What is Ram Prasad Sharma v. CIT authority for?

The Tribunal may admit additional evidence if the assessee demonstrates sufficient cause for not producing it earlier, the evidence is material to the issue, and justice demands its admission. The Tribunal's discretion to admit evidence under Rule 29 is limited and must be exercised reasonably.

14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Ram Prasad Sharma v. CIT · Rule 29 · additional evidence · Tribunal · sufficient cause · material bearing · ends of justice · discretion · Rule 46A

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 115BBESection 139(1)Section 143(3A)Section 143(3B)

Issues it is cited on

admission of additional evidencerule 46ascrutiny assessmentsection 142(1)nfaccompanydocumentindiatotal incomebusinessinterest

Judgments citing Ram Prasad Sharma v. CIT

M/S Stanford Developers, Neemrana Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Behror

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

ITA 405/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT- DR a
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…as prevented by sufficient cause to lead such an evidence and that said evidence would have material bearing on issue and ends of justice demanded admission of such an evidence, Tribunal could pass an order to that effect. (5) Ram Prasad Sharma Vs. CIT (1979) 119 ITR 867 (Allahabad) 25 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. Under Rule 29, the powers of the Tribunal admit additional evidences are limited and the Tribunal has a discretion which, of course, must be exercised reasonably. 3. In view of the aforesaid facts, the Hon'ble Tribunal is requested to kindly admit the additional/supporting evidences for proper adj…

Venkateshwara Wires Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld. Ao As Well As Before The Ld. Cit(A) As The Documents Submitted Was Only In Support Of Confirmations & Other Documents Already Submitted & No New Documents Were Submitted. 2. The Assessee Craves Your Indulgence To Add Amend Or Alter All Or Any Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 801ASection 80I

…an evidence and that said evidence would have material bearing on issue and ends of justice demanded admission of such an evidence, Tribunal could pass an order to that effect. 32 Venkateshwara Wires Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (5) Ram Prasad Sharma Vs. CIT (1979) 119 ITR 867 (Allahabad) Under Rule 29, the powers of the Tribunal admit additional evidences are limited and the Tribunal has a discretion which, of course, must be exercised reasonably. 3. In view of the aforesaid facts, the Hon'ble Tribunal is requested to kindly admit the additional/supporting evidences for proper adjudication of the matter. 7. To suppor…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), New Delhi, Delhi vs. Acore Consulting Pvt Ltd, Dlehi

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

ITA 1308/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

…good reasons and after allowing the assessing officer reasonable opportunity to have his say in the matter is supported by some more judgments such as CIT v. Babulal Jain 176 ITR 411 (MP); C. Unnikrishnan v. CIT 233 ITR 485 (Ker); and Ramprasad Sharma v. CIT 119 ITR 867 (All). 12. In the case of Smt. Prabhavati Shah v. CIT 231 ITR 1 (Bom) Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court dealt with a case where the assessee sought to produce fresh evidence before the first appellate authority for no good reasons for not having produced the same before the assessing officer. Referring to the provisions of rule 46A the Hon'ble B…

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

…MAHESH KUMAR SHARMA VS ITO, WARD 7(4), JAIPUR evidence so brought on the record will have to be ignored and the case decided as if it is non-existent." In the case of Ram Prasad Sharma vs. CIT reported in [1979] reported in 233 Taxman 469 (Allahabad)/[1979] 119 ITR 867 (Allahabad)[23-07-1979] the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has held that it would be seen that according to this rule the appellant-shall not be entitled to produce before the AAC any evidence, whether oral or documentary, which was not produced in the course of the proceedings before the ITO except in specified circumstances. Thus, the appellant h…

Shashank Shekhar Singh, New Delhi vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Baroda

In the result, ITA No. 924/Ahd/2016 appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

ITA 2878/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Sept 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Manish J.Shah, A.R., &For Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…n a duration of six months and the conduct of the assessee is contrary to his investment pattern in various Mutual Funds but non-cooperation with the Department and relying upon the Allahabad High Court judgment in the case of Ram Prasad Sharma vs. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 867 and other judgment dismissed the appeal of the assessee, observing that there is no violation of Rule 46A. 4. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law as well as on facts while confirming the following additions. Sr. N…

Shashank Shekhar Singh, New Delhi vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Baroda

In the result, ITA No. 924/Ahd/2016 appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

ITA 924/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Sept 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Manish J.Shah, A.R., &For Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…n a duration of six months and the conduct of the assessee is contrary to his investment pattern in various Mutual Funds but non-cooperation with the Department and relying upon the Allahabad High Court judgment in the case of Ram Prasad Sharma vs. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 867 and other judgment dismissed the appeal of the assessee, observing that there is no violation of Rule 46A. 4. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law as well as on facts while confirming the following additions. Sr. N…

Shivaji Ramdas Sakhare, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Pune

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1567/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1567/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shivaji Ramdas Sakhare, Survey No.87/1/1(P), Sakhare Wasti, Hinjewadi, Mulshi, Pune- 412 106. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Awnps8232K बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ito, 2(4), Pune Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 54F

…the AO to produce evidence in support of various claims in the return but no evidence whatsoever was given. Under these circumstances, I refuse to admit fresh evidence at the appellate stage. 9.7 Hon’ble Allahabad HC in the case of Ram Prasad Sharma vs. CIT, 119 ITR 867 with regard to applicability of Rule 46A, has held by mentioning facts as under: “For the assessment year 1976-77, the assessee filed a return in compliance with notice under section 139(2). His persistent defaults entailed an ex parte assessment under section 144 and the ITO included in the taxable income, as income from undisclosed sources, the…

Devendersingh Sajubhai Jadeja, Vadodara vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 464/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 464/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Devendersingh Sajubhai Jadeja, Income Tax Officer, C/101, Baroda Skyz, Vs. Ward-1(2)(1), Opp. Adarsh Duplex, Vadodara. Gorwa Road, Vadodara-390022. Pan: Aelpj2883F

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Shukla, CIT.D.R
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

…ture income for so many years in cash. In view of these contradictions, the Addl. Evidences were not accepted as the, same are not filed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 46A. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Ram Prasad Sharma Vs CIT [1979] 119 ITR 867 (All.} has held that the production of additional evidence either before the first appellate authority or the Tribunal was not as a matter of right and in case a discretion was exercised in accordance with law there was no occasion to interfere. Similar view has been taken by Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rao Raja Hanut Singh [2001]…

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

…ipur Udyog Ltd. (Raj) 227 ITR 345, Velji Deoraj & Co. vs. CIT 4 (Bom.) 68 ITR 708, Jyotsna Suri vs. DCIT (ITAT, Del) 61 ITD 139, A.K. Babu Khan vs. CIT (AP) 102 ITR 757, DCIT vs. Vira Construction Co. (ITAT, Mum TM) 61 ITD 33, Ram Prasad Sharma vs. CIT (All) 119 ITR 867.” 7. The CIT(A) did not accept the evidence filed before him on the ground that the assessee failed to explain why these documents and evidences were not filed before the AO. 8. In the above background of the case, I am of the considered opinion that in order to render substantial justice to the assessee the additional evidence filed before CIT(…

Shri Dharmendrasinh R.Vaghela, Baroda vs. The Addl.CIT, Range-2, Baroda

In the result, ground no.2 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2444/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 68

…drasinh R. Vaghela vs. ITO] A.Y. 2009-10 - 6 - without citing any reasonable cause that prevented him to produce such evidence before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Allahabad High Court in the case of Ram Prasad Sharma Vs CIT [1979] 119 ITR 867 (All.) has held that the production of additional evidence either before the first appellate authority or the Tribunal was not as a matter of right and in case a discretion was exercised in accordance with law there was no occasion to interfere. Similar view has been taken by Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rao Raja Hanut Singh [2001]…

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

…r Udyog Ltd, (Raj.) 227 ITR 345 Velji Deoraj & Co. Vs. CIT (Bom) 68 ITR 708 Jyotsna Suri Vs. DCIT (ITAT, Del) 61ITD 139 Page 3 of 34 A.K.Babu Khan Vs. CIT (AP) 102 ITR 757 DCIT Vs. Vira Construction Co. (ITAT,Mum, TM) 61 ITD 33 Ramprasad Sharma Vs. CIT (All.)119 ITR 867 Dinesh B. Parikh Vs. CIT (Cal) 202 Taxman (Mag) 110 (6) That the appellant craves leave to add, modify and/or delete any ground(s) of appeal. (7) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may be set aside and that of the A.O. restored. 2. The assessee has also filed Cross objection No. 448/…

Concord Enviro Systems (P ) Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 10, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA N0

ITA 3917/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3917/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Concord Enviro Systems (Pvt) Acit -10, बनाम/ Ltd., 101, Hdil Tower, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Anant Kanekar Marg, Annex. M.K. Marg, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai-400051 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc8962C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian,DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

…g decisions in support of his decision not to admit additional evidences : a) CIT v. Ranjit Kumar Choudhary 288 ITR 179(Gau. HC) b) Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah 231 ITR 01 (Bom). c) Fairdeal Filaments Limited v. CIT 302 ITR 173(Guj HC) d) Ram Prasad Sharma v. CIT 119 ITR 867(All HC) e) CIT v. Rao Raja Hanutsingh 252 ITR 528(Raj.HC) 9. The learned CIT(A) adjudicated ground No. 1 whereby it was agitated by the assessee company that the AO has erred in stating that the activities shown by the assessee company were actually part of the activities of the main group company i.e. Rochem Separation Systems (I) P. Ltd. which…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Kalatmak Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1071/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri C.M. Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Sharma, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Suresh Gupta, C.A
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…re the AO despite sufficient opportunity having been given, but filed them with CIT(A) as additional evidence u/r. 46A of the IT Rules. In this context, we are fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Ram Prasad Sharma vs. CIT, 119 ITR 867, wherein the Hon’ble Court held as under : “6. It would be seen that according to this the appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the AAC any evidence, whether oral or documentary, which was not produced in the course of the proceedings before the ITO except in specified circumstances. Thus, the appellant has right to produce additiona…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Virgin Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd

ITA/666/2009HC Delhi18 Feb 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 41(1)

…remanding the matter back) should have made inquiry, which had not been done and therefore, order passed by the Tribunal is perverse on facts. It was contented that the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ram Prasad Sharma Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [119 ITR 867) has held that under Rule 46A, the assessee shall not be entitled to produce before the AAC (first appellate authority) any evidence, whether oral or documentary, which was not produced in the course of proceeding before the Income Tax Officer except in specified circumstances. Where repeated opportunities were given by the ITO to produce e…

Ram Prasad Sharma v. CIT (119 ITR 867) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax