← 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

Mayank Jayantilal Desai, Mumbai vs. ITO- Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 706/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Arun Khodpia ()

Section 145(3)Section 147

against assessee from the investigation wing based on the documents furnished by the assessee. 3.1 The assessee also furnish application dated 08/03/2017 requesting admission of additional evidence under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. It is submitted that, the additional evidence were affidavits from the parties from whom ... alleged bogus purchases have been said to have made by the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) however rejected all the admission of additional evidences and also rejected all the legal issues raised by the assessee. However while deciding the issue on merits the Ld.CIT(A) restricted the addition

Surendra Kumar, Income Tax Officer, Ward -19(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mayank Jayantilal Desai, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1300/MUM/2025[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2007-2008

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Arun Khodpia ()

Section 145(3)Section 147

against assessee from the investigation wing based on the documents furnished by the assessee. 3.1 The assessee also furnish application dated 08/03/2017 requesting admission of additional evidence under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. It is submitted that, the additional evidence were affidavits from the parties from whom ... alleged bogus purchases have been said to have made by the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) however rejected all the admission of additional evidences and also rejected all the legal issues raised by the assessee. However while deciding the issue on merits the Ld.CIT(A) restricted the addition

Milan Saini, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2335/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 17Section 250(6)Section 28

right to sue and settlement of disputes is a capital receipt not chargeable to tax.” 5.1 The appellant/assessee filed application dated 25.06.2024 for admission of additional evidence. 6. Learned Authorized Representative for the appellant/assessee submitted that the appellant completed his bachelor's in electronic engineering from 3 Punjab Engineering College

Aslam Kassam Merchant, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4695/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2015-16 Aslam Kassam Merchant, Income Tax Officer, 85, Ground Floor, Ward-20(1)(2), Victoria Road, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Mustafa Bazar, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400010. Pan : Aefpm5272D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Pravin B. Shetty For Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-10-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-10-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 26-05-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Pravin B. ShettyFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Given the fact that the assessee moved an application for admission of additional evidences before the Ld.CIT(A) and as part of appeal migration process, it appears that the same has either not been transmitted appropriately ... proper to set aside and restore the matter to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to consider the assessee‟s application for admission of additional evidences and to decide the matter afresh as per law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. All the contentions on merits have thus been

Sri Prem Properties Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-24(1), New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 957/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Sri Prem Properties Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 24 (1), A – 99, Bajghera Chowk, Delhi. New Palam Vihar, Gurgaon – 122 017 (Haryana). (Pan :Aaacs2554E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Skasham Agarwal, Ca Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2025 Date Of Order : 24.10.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)]Dated 04.01.2024 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 30.09.2012 Declaring An Income Of Rs.2,15,340/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny For The Year Under Consideration.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, CIT DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148

documents in respect of the claim, however assessee has not furnished any application under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1961 for admission of additional evidences and also not explained the reasons for not placing the evidences before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings and he rejected

Taufiq Ahmed, Muradnagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2)(4), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 3946/DEL/2023[2012-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-23

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmataufiq Ahmed, Vs. Ito, 115, Moh-Vyapeerayan, 3, Ward-2(2)(4), Khatikan, Muradnagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ajupa6473A Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Agarwal, Adv Shri Varun Goel, Adv Revenue By: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR
Section 142Section 144Section 147Section 148

Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us raising grounds of appeal and also filed an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. After considering the additional evidence submitted before us, we admit the additional evidence submitted by the assessee

Rakesh Jain, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, International Tax, Ward-1(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1700/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Sudheendra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Revenue
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 24

appeal dismissed by order dated 11.6.2025. 5. Assessee aggrieved with the same is in appeal before us. The assessee filed an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 Page 4 of 6 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 in the form of a paperbook containing pages

Vishnukumar Cokalchand Gupta, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4578/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik

cost of improvement claimed by the assessee has to be allowed. 7. The ld. Departmental Representative (‘ld. DR’ for short) strongly objected against admission of additional evidences. She submitted, since the assessee had sufficient opportunity to furnish the evidences before the Departmental Authorities, they cannot be furnished at this stage

Harshadbhai Maganbhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(3)(2), Surat

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

ITA 111/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.111/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 (Hybrid Hearing) Harshadbhai Maganbhai Patel Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3)(2), बनाम/ C-1007, Pratisha Tower, Surat, Anavil Business Center, Vs. Sarela Wadi, Ghod-Dod Road, Adajan Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat- 395 007 Surat-395 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adgpp 3387 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 24/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144(3)Section 250

hearing of the appeal.” 3. During the course of hearing, the Ld. Authorised Representative for the appellant filed an application dated 24.07.2025, seeking admission of additional evidences in the case assessee for AY 2016-17. This additional evidence pertains to one of the lenders, Ms. Deepika Goyal, from whom unsecured ... issues in dispute. ITA No.111/Srt/2024 A.Y 16-17 Harshadbhai M Patel 3.3 The Ld. CIT-DR for the revenue opposed the admission of additional evidence, stating that sufficient opportunity had been granted during assessment and appellate proceedings. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available

Karyon Healthy Co Forever LLP, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 7(3), Pune

ITA 1563/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Abhilash HiranFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia (Virtual)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 270A

assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee on technical ground of not furnishing any application with regard to admission of additional evidences in terms of Rule 46A. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in the absence of application/request by the assessee to permit him to rely

Karyon Healthy Co Forever LLP, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 7(3), Pune

ITA 1562/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Abhilash HiranFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia (Virtual)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 270A

assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee on technical ground of not furnishing any application with regard to admission of additional evidences in terms of Rule 46A. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in the absence of application/request by the assessee to permit him to rely

Karyon Healthy Co Forever LLP, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 7(3), Pune

ITA 1561/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Abhilash HiranFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia (Virtual)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 270A

assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee on technical ground of not furnishing any application with regard to admission of additional evidences in terms of Rule 46A. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in the absence of application/request by the assessee to permit him to rely

Karyon Healthy Co Forever LLP, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 7(3), Pune

ITA 1560/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Abhilash HiranFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia (Virtual)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 270A

assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee on technical ground of not furnishing any application with regard to admission of additional evidences in terms of Rule 46A. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in the absence of application/request by the assessee to permit him to rely

Mr. Giliyal Chandrashekhara Bhat, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 24(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 750/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

details of payment for the property, are now available with the assessee, and in this regard, brought our attention to the application seeking admission of additional evidence filed separately by the assessee before us. 6. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (“learned DR") submitted that all these details ... same could also not be filed before the learned CIT(A), which now form part of the application seeking admission of additional evidence. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue raised before us to the file

Hoshiyari, Rewari vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rewari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed”

ITA 5864/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Hoshiyari C/O Anu Jain & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Company, 272 R, First Floor, Ward-1, Near Palika Complex, Model Rewari. Town, Rewari (Haryana) Pin: 123 401 Pan :Bmdpd2079Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 250Section 54

said sale. 5. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has filed an application u/r 46A of the IT Rules, 1962 for admission of additional evidence with stating that: “(1) The land sold by the Assessee comes under the local municipality of Dharuhera and Dharuhera having population 30,344 according

Manoj Kumar Jain (Hfu), Durg vs. Income Tax Officer 2(2), Bhilai, Durg

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

ITA 240/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.240/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Manoj Kumar Jain (Huf) Aapapura, Bhoipara, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan: Aalhm0106J

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

filed or may allow such evidence to be adduced.]” 4. In this regard, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has given petition for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, wherein a certificate has been furnished by the assessee stating that these ... additional evidences were furnished neither before the A.O nor before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. For the sake of completeness, the application for admission of additional evidences filed on 10.10.2025 is extracted as follows: 4 Manoj Kumar Jain Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Bhilai 5. Considering the aforesaid facts

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

appeal. 7. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in not admitting application dated 14th November 2017 seeking admission of Addition Evidence as per provisions of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules 1962. 7.1 That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in holding ... 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

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

appeal. 7. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in not admitting application dated 14th November 2017 seeking admission of Addition Evidence as per provisions of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules 1962. 7.1 That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in holding ... 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

Rakesh Shivram Bandre, Thane vs. ITO Ward 3(2), Thane

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

ITA 4216/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 133(6)Section 254(1)

Senior Department Representative (Ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that he has filed the application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. The Ld.AR submits that he has filed complete bank statement of bank account ... overall cash in hand claimed by assessee in not commensurate with the income shown by assessee in past several assessment years. On admission on additional evidence, the Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that in case the additional evidence filed by assessee is accepted. The matter may be restored

Mohammed Rauf Farook Khan, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Thane

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 4015/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhukeshwar Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri,(Sr. AR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

contentions. Both the sides did not object to this proposition. It may be stated here that the assessee before us has requested for admission of additional evidence stating that he could not submit the same before the AO due to certain unavoidable reasons. Accordingly, in the substantial interest of justice