← All Phrases

“admission of additional evidence”

AppealsRule 46ARule 46A1,576 judgments

The decision most relied on for admission of additional evidence is CBI v. V.C. Shukla (3 SCC 410), cited in 442 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on admission of additional evidence

CBI v. V.C. Shukla
3 SCC 410 · 1998 · Supreme Court
442
citing judgments

Loose sheets of paper, excel sheets, or diaries, often referred to as 'dumb documents,' are wholly irrelevant as evidence and not admissible under Section 34 of the Evidence Act if they lack evidentiary value. Additions to income cannot be made solely based on such documents without corroborating, reliable, and admissible evidence supported by other circumstances.

Common Cause v. Union of India
77 Taxmann.com 245 · 2017 · Supreme Court
267
citing judgments

Additions under the Income Tax Act cannot be made solely based on entries in loose sheets, dumb documents, or mere sworn statements without independent, reliable, and cogent corroborating evidence. Uncorroborated loose papers are not admissible evidence on their own, even if the original context was criminal investigation.

Shri Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT
174 Taxmann 466 · 2008 · High Court
225
citing judgments

Liability cannot be fastened solely on the basis of a self-incriminating sworn statement made during a search, as such statements are not conclusive and require corroborative evidence.

Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT
231 ITR 1 · 1998 · High Court
186
citing judgments

The first appellate authority must admit additional evidence if it is necessary for determining the true state of affairs and preventing undue hardship or a failure of justice, even without a specific request and particularly when the case falls under Rule 46A(1)(c).

CIT v. Manish Build Well (P) Ltd.
16 Taxmann.com 27 · 2011 · High Court
120
citing judgments

The CIT(A) must strictly comply with Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules for admitting additional evidence, ensuring all prescribed conditions exist, reasons are recorded, and reasonable opportunity is provided to the Assessing Officer.

CIT v. Sunil Aggarwal
64 Taxmann.com 107 · 2015 · High Court
113
citing judgments

An addition of an unexplained cash credit based solely on an assessee's retracted admission made during a search and seizure operation is not justified, especially if the assessee later provides verifiable explanations.

CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram
282 ITR 259 · 2006 · High Court
108
citing judgments

Seized loose sheets or unsigned documents discovered during a search operation possess admissible evidentiary value and can form the basis for income additions if corroborated by external evidence, such as matching payments, business records, or corroborative statements.

CIT v. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd.
351 ITR 57 · 2013 · High Court
88
citing judgments

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.

Judgments citing admission of additional evidence

Ameetsingh Ajitsingh Rajpal, Pune vs. DCIT Circle-5, Pune

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

ITA 1705/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1705/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ameetsingh Ajitsingh Rajpal, Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. 479, Eden Villa, Rasta Peth, Kasba Peth, Pune- 411011. Pan : Aaqpr3148E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora & Riya Oswal Revenue By : Smt. N. C. Shilpa Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.05.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 54F Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Amounting To Rs. 92,85,214/-Solely On The Ground That The Reinvestment Was Not Made In A Residential House.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora &For Respondent: Smt. N. C. Shilpa
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54FSection 68

also submitted an application under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 for admission of additional evidences filed in the shape of paper book no.2 starting from page 5 no.101 to 246. Apart from these additional evidences, Ld. AR also relied on legal compilation consisting ... which was also confirmed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. In this regard, we also find that the assessee has filed an application for admission of additional evidences which could not be filed before the subordinate authorities. We further find that the assessee has relied on coordinate bench decisions passed

Shot Formats Digital Productions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 16(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6879/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Respondent: Mr. Dinesh Kureja a/w
Section 68

atum of valuation. During the course of hearing, the learned atum of valuation. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel pressed for admission of additional evidence only with counsel pressed for admission of additional evidence only with counsel pressed for admission of additional evidence only with respect to items ... adjudication of the controversy. The principles governing admission adjudication of the controversy. The principles governing admission adjudication of the controversy. The principles governing admission of additional evidence of additional evidence are well settled: where such evidence is are well settled: where such evidence is crucial to do substantial justice

Manu Gaur, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Office, Noida

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4867/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandramanu Guar Vs. Ito, Ward 5(2)(2) Flat No. 3204, Tower 7, Aayakar Bhavan, A-2D, Tata Primanti, Southern Sector 24, Noida Peripheral Road, Sector – 72, Uttar Pradesh – 201301 Vatika Chowk, Sohna Road, Gurgaon, Haryana 122001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Akopg1091K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Arora, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

amongst other grounds of appeal, assessee has raised grounds that assessee’s application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules 1962 for admission of additional evidences was dismissed which according to the assessee has led to prejudice as assessee was not represented in the assessment proceedings as well ... enquire into the issue afresh calling for a remand report from the AO. 5. Thus, ends of justice required admission of additional evidences. Accordingly, we allow the ground nos. 3 to 7 and admit the additional evidences which require verification of the additional evidences, therefore, setting aside the impugned orders

Viswanathan Krishnakumar, Aluva vs. Income Tax Officer, Aluva

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

ITA 606/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar P J, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal. Snr AR
Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 250Section 54FSection 80C

related to this appeal, the assessee is ready to file the additional evidence before the Bench. The relevant part of the petition for admission of additional evidence u/r 26 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, which is extracted below:- “PETITION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE (Under Rule ... deem fit in the interest of justice and equity.” 4. The Ld.DR has argued and not made any strong objection against the admission of additional evidence. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record. The additions in dispute pertain to various heads, namely

Minakshi Kishor Lolge, Parbhani vs. ITO, Ward-Hingoli, Parbhani

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1962/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1962/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Minakshi Kishor Lolge, V The Income Tax Officer, Takli Kumbhakarna, Parbhani, S Ward Hingoli, Parbhani. Maharashtra – 431540. Pan: Bcypl7838J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarang Gudhate Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule (Through Virtual Hearing) –Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2019-20 Dated 24.06.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 23.11.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 69

order only because assessee did not file the details. 8. In this case, during the proceedings before this Tribunal, ld.AR filed petition for admission of additional evidence, along with additional evidence. Ld.AR submitted that since assessee was not fully conversant with the e-Proceedings, Assessee could not file the documents

Assistant Commissioner of Incometax, Corporate Circle-1 1, Chennai vs. Flextronics Technologies India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 3016/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3016/Chny/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Flextronics Technologies India Tax, Private Limited, Corporate Circle-1(1), Plot No.3, Phase Ii Sipcot Industrial Chennai. Park, Sandavellure C Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Chennai-602 106 [Pan: Aaacf5248E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Co No.5 /Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Flextronics Technologies India Private Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Plot No.3, Phase Ii Sipcot Industrial Corporate Circle-1(1), Park, Sandavellure C Village, Chennai. Sriperumbudur Taluk, Chennai-602 106 [Pan: Aaacf5248E] अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.P.Lalith Kumar, Ca & Mr.S.Sripal, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, Cit

For Appellant: Mr.P.Lalith Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT
Section 144Section 144C(1)

officer who was at the opportune time attending physical appeals. The assessee vide its letter dated 07.09.2018 had requested for admission of additional evidences. Records indicate that DCIT Corporate Circle-2(1), Chennai had issued a letter to the assessee for remand proceedings. This was done as company’s registered

Saugaat, Ambala Cantt vs. ITO, Ward 4, Ambala Cantt. (Assessment Unit), Ambala Cantt

ITA 443/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

proceedings have been initiated in that matter. The Ld. AR, had submitted an application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules for admission of additional evidence which is to the following effect: “3. That the assessee had duly handed over all primary documents to the Chartered Accountant Sh. Sanjay Laul ... Assessee (partnership firm) and, therefore, the provision of section 176 (3) is not applicable. 14. Per contra, the Ld. DR objected to admission of additional evidences. He has drawn our attention to page 4 of the assessment order where the Assessee had submitted the reply on 10.9.2022 and has only

Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2) Kalyan, Kalyan vs. Jaikumar Amarlalphagwani, Ulhasnagar

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6729/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2018-19 Income Tax Officer Ward Jaikumar 2(2) Kalyan Amarlalphagwani Income Tax Office Mohan Plaza Flat No. 703, 7Th Floor, Wayale Nagar Vs. Milan Palace A Wing Khemani, Nr Ruhani Satsang Hall Ulhasnagar, Mumbai- 421002 Pan: Amnpp8597Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Sunil Makhija A/W Ms. Manisha Ghind Revenue By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing : 22.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry:

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Makhija a/wFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr.D.R
Section 250Section 46A(3)

documents including geneses and complete chain of documents to substantiate the transaction and before the Ld. Commissioner neither filed any appropriate application for admission of additional evidences nor established that its case falls under any of the exceptions carved out in Rules 46A(1) of the Rules. Further

Suresh Chand, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 2452/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshsuresh Chand, Vs. Ito, C/O. Ca Mr Sahu, House No. Ward-4(1), 651, 1St Floor, Sector-10A, Gurgaon Nr. Gd Goenka Public School, Gurgaon-122 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aoopk7257H Assessee By : Shri V. Rajakumar, Adv Revenue By: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri V. Rajakumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 147

assessee before ld CIT(A) were not admitted on the ground that Suresh Chand the same was not accompanied with the petition for admission of additional evidence. In our considered opinion, this is only a technical breach though substantially the entire evidences in support of the contentions of the assessee

Satbir Sagwal, Karnal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Karnal

ITA 1617/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Satbir, Sagwal C/O Tej Mohan Vs Income Tax, Officer Singh H.No.527, Sector 10D Ward-4 Karnal Haryana Chandigarh 160011 Pan No. Bdops3759N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69

unjustified. 4. That Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in rejecting the application filed under Rule 46A of the Act for admission of additional evidence which evidence goes to the root of the matter and as such the order passed is arbitrary and unjustified. 5. Without prejudice

Pirtpal Singh Brar, Muktsar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Muktsar

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

ITA 38/ASR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. &
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 208Section 249Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69

before the Tribunal on the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal. Referring to the paper book filed along with an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules, 1963, the ld. AR submitted that agricultural income on sale of agricultural produce has been received from

Bharat Agarwal Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Lonavala, Lonavala vs. Income Tax Officer. Ward 9(5), Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1752/PUN/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S Shingte, CAFor Respondent: Shri Uodol Raj Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

limine without discussing anything on merits of the issues and on the ground that the assessee has not provided plausible explanation for admission of additional evidences. 5 ITA.No.1752/PUN./2025 (Bharat Agarwal Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Lonavala) 8. Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act provides that the sum received

Mahesh Vishwas Tudavekar, Kolar vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Belgaum

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

ITA 336/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. No.336/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18 ) Mahesh Vishwas Tudavekar, Vs Ito-Ward-5, 1505,Kudasammanavar Galli, Feroj Khimjibhai Cpx, . Bailhongal, Civil Hospital Road Belgavi-591102, Belagavi-590001. Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan .No. Aiwpt1145P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Ld.AR emphasized that the assessee has submitted the details as called for by the authorities. The assessee is filling the application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of ITAT rules along with securities transactions details, financial statements, client global derivatives segment, insurance payment details and Form.No

Rama Laxman Dhamanekar, Belagavi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Belagavi

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

ITA 194/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member)

Ld.AR emphasized that the assessee has submitted the details as called for by the authorities. The assesse is filling the application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of ITAT rules along with SBI bank statement, summary of cash withdrawls and deposits,RTC extract of agricultural land substantiating

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-(1), Raipur vs. Goenka Rockwool India Private Limited, Raipur

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

ITA 453/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.453/Rpr/2025 Co No. 18/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

Para 4.4 of its order which reads as follows: “4.4 During the course of appeal proceedings, the appellant had submitted as request for admission of additional evidence u/r.46A. The appellant submitted a copy of letter no. 8968 dt: 03/11/17 issued by Commercial tax department to the appellant and ledger

Pavitar Singh, Jagadhri, Yamunanagar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 653/CHANDI/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 653/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Pavitar Singh, Ito, बना 188, Vuillage Satgoli, Nwr-W-(65)(95) Bhagu Majra, Chandigarh म Jadadhri, Yamunanagar Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bteps4094J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rachit Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

relevant for the AY under consideration and the appellant has not moved an application under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules for admission of additional evidence. Without prejudice to the fact that the appellant has not invoked provisions of Rule 46A of the IT Rules, the evidences are not relevant

Tarun Sharda Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (in Situ) Circle-I, Ludhiana vs. Sharmanji Yarns Private Limited, Ludhiana

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 340/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.340/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Jcit (In Situ) M/S Sharmanji Yarns Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1 बनाम/ Village Lakhowal Road Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Kohara, Jandiali Vs. Ludhiana – 141001 Ludhiana - 141112 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahcs-6629-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.331/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S Sharmanji Yarns Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-Circle-1 बनाम/ Village Lakhowal Road Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Kohara, Jandiali Ludhiana – 141001 Vs. Ludhiana - 141112 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahcs-6629-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit)(Virtual) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT)(Virtual) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

freight bills, e-way bills, and other details related to purchases made from four suppliers under consideration. The Ld. AO, while opposing the admission of additional evidences, opined that the affidavits of the suppliers were contradictory to in-depth enquiries as conducted during assessment proceedings. Shri Monu himself admitted misuse

Sharmanji Yarns Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Ludhiana

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 331/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.340/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Jcit (In Situ) M/S Sharmanji Yarns Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1 बनाम/ Village Lakhowal Road Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Kohara, Jandiali Vs. Ludhiana – 141001 Ludhiana - 141112 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahcs-6629-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.331/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S Sharmanji Yarns Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-Circle-1 बनाम/ Village Lakhowal Road Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Kohara, Jandiali Ludhiana – 141001 Vs. Ludhiana - 141112 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahcs-6629-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit)(Virtual) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT)(Virtual) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

freight bills, e-way bills, and other details related to purchases made from four suppliers under consideration. The Ld. AO, while opposing the admission of additional evidences, opined that the affidavits of the suppliers were contradictory to in-depth enquiries as conducted during assessment proceedings. Shri Monu himself admitted misuse

Income Tax Officer, Lower Parel vs. Bhavani Balasubramaniam Iyer, Mumbai

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

ITA 2933/MUM/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Yagnesh DesaiFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 69

head „business and profession‟. 3. The assessee thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), and also moved an application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 („the Rules‟). The Ld.CIT(A), after calling for the remand report from

Income Tax Officer, Pirmal Chamber, Lower Parel vs. Bhavani Balasubramaniam Iyer, Mumbai

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

ITA 2932/MUM/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Yagnesh DesaiFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 69

head „business and profession‟. 3. The assessee thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), and also moved an application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 („the Rules‟). The Ld.CIT(A), after calling for the remand report from