← 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

Income Tax Officer, Surat vs. Saffron Green International Private Limited, Surat

In the result, appeal of revenue is partly allowed

ITA 958/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.958/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 (Hybrid Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Saffron Green International Pvt. बनाम/ 2(1)(3), Surat, Room No.221, Ltd. Shop No.3008, Shree Mahavir Vs. 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Textiles Puna Kumbhariya Road, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 Surat-395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawcs 3137 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Deven K. Kapadia, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Aashish Pophare, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act’) Dated 16.07.2024 By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short, ‘The Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S. 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act On 21.03.2023. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: “I. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Restricting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Of Rs.5,70,70,621/- On Account Of 100% Bogus Purchase To 0.25% Of The Bogus Purchases & Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Ignoring The Facts That These Purchases Are Sham Transactions Fabricated Through Bogus Paper Concerns Of M/S. Savitri Trading Company & Mohammed Javed Mohammed Jabir Momin Which Were Engaged In Providing Accommodation Entries.

Section 147Section 250Section 250(2)

raised by the Ld. CIT-DR regarding the violation of principles of natural justice at the end of CIT(A) on account of admission of additional evidence during appellate proceedings without giving reasonable opportunity to AO, the Ld. AR stated that perusal of appellate order of CIT(A) makes

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Kanpur vs. Shri.Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

Kanpur and not before the undersigned. Pr. CIT-1, Kanpur in turn has requested this office to give fresh opportunity to AO on admission of additional evidence and requested to review of the impugned order in light of above facts, on following three grounds: i) Assessee has got relief from ... turn Pr. CIT-1 Kanpur has not requested for recalling the impugned order but only requested to give fresh opportunity to AO on admission of additional evidence and to review of the impugned order. Since, no specific statutory request for invoking S. 154 of IT Act has been made

Mohd. Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur vs. Deputi Commissioner of Income Tax CC-2, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

Kanpur and not before the undersigned. Pr. CIT-1, Kanpur in turn has requested this office to give fresh opportunity to AO on admission of additional evidence and requested to review of the impugned order in light of above facts, on following three grounds: i) Assessee has got relief from ... turn Pr. CIT-1 Kanpur has not requested for recalling the impugned order but only requested to give fresh opportunity to AO on admission of additional evidence and to review of the impugned order. Since, no specific statutory request for invoking S. 154 of IT Act has been made

The Life Eternal Trust, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 447/PUN/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.447/Pun/2025 The Life Eternal Trust, Vs. Cit, Exemption, Pune. Plot No.79, Sr. No.98, Right Bhusari Colony, Behind Lohiya Jain It Park, Kothrud, Pune- 411028. Pan : Aactt4211E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Shah Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit, Exemption, Pune Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 80G(5) Of The It Act. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are, That The Assessee Filed Its Application For Registration In Form No.10Ab Under Clause (Iii) Of First Proviso To Sub-Section (5) Of Section 80G Of The It Act On 29.06.2024. With A View To Verify The Genuineness Of Activities Of The Assessee & Fulfillment Of Conditions Laid Down In Clauses (I) To (V) Of Section 80G(5) Of The It Act, A Notice Was Issued Through

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(58)

with pooja expenses and were accounted for under the head ‘pooja expenses’. In support of this contention, Ld. AR furnished an application for admission of additional evidences wherein certain photographs regarding Sahaj Yoga and detailed financial statements with bifurcation of expenditure were furnished. Accordingly, Ld. AR requested before the Bench

Kapil Foods and Structures Private Limited, Warangal vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 206/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.205 & 206/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-17 & 2017-18) M/S. Kapil Foods & Structures Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle-3(1), Hyderabad. Pvt. Ltd., Warangal. Pan: Aacck2614F (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Two Appeals Are Filed By M/S. Kapil Foods & Structures Pvt. Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Both Dated 09.12.2024 For The A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. Since The Issues Involved In Both These Appeals Are Identical & Belong To The Same Assessee, One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

additional evidence in support of its claim which could not be filed before the lower authorities. He also prayed before the bench for admission of additional evidence so filed. The Ld. AR also submitted that, the assessee is in the business of real estate and receives advances from customers ... appeal of the assessee deserves dismissal. 9. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. As far as the admission of additional evidence is concerned, the assessee has filed audited balance sheet extracts, details of customer advances and investment statements. These documents go to the root

Kapil Foods and Structures Private Limited, Warangal vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 205/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.205 & 206/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-17 & 2017-18) M/S. Kapil Foods & Structures Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle-3(1), Hyderabad. Pvt. Ltd., Warangal. Pan: Aacck2614F (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Two Appeals Are Filed By M/S. Kapil Foods & Structures Pvt. Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Both Dated 09.12.2024 For The A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. Since The Issues Involved In Both These Appeals Are Identical & Belong To The Same Assessee, One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

additional evidence in support of its claim which could not be filed before the lower authorities. He also prayed before the bench for admission of additional evidence so filed. The Ld. AR also submitted that, the assessee is in the business of real estate and receives advances from customers ... appeal of the assessee deserves dismissal. 9. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. As far as the admission of additional evidence is concerned, the assessee has filed audited balance sheet extracts, details of customer advances and investment statements. These documents go to the root

Lexus Softmac, Surat vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 703/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.702 & 703/Srt/2024 Ays: (2014-15 &2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Lexus Softmac, Deputy Commissioner Of F -3 To F-6, Gujarat Hira Bourse, Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), बनाम/ Gems & Jewellery Park, Surat Room No.108, Vs. Ichchhapore, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Surat - 394510 Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabfl 0495 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Deven K Kapadia, C.A. राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 19/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

initiating the penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. On the facts and merits of the case, the appellant craves for admission of additional evidences in the interest of natural justice and equity. 10. Appellant craves for stay of demand. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter ... initiating the penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. On the facts and merits of the case, the appellant craves for admission of additional evidences in the interest of natural justice and equity. 9. Appellant craves for stay of demand. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter

Lexus Softmac, Surat vs. DCIT, Circle1(1)(1), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 702/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.702 & 703/Srt/2024 Ays: (2014-15 &2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Lexus Softmac, Deputy Commissioner Of F -3 To F-6, Gujarat Hira Bourse, Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), बनाम/ Gems & Jewellery Park, Surat Room No.108, Vs. Ichchhapore, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Surat - 394510 Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabfl 0495 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Deven K Kapadia, C.A. राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 19/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

initiating the penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. On the facts and merits of the case, the appellant craves for admission of additional evidences in the interest of natural justice and equity. 10. Appellant craves for stay of demand. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter ... initiating the penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. On the facts and merits of the case, the appellant craves for admission of additional evidences in the interest of natural justice and equity. 9. Appellant craves for stay of demand. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter

Shri Chandrakant Balasaheb Jadhav, Satara vs. ITO Ward-5, Satara

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1360/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1360/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Chandrakant Balasaheb V The Income Tax Officer, Jadhav, S Ward-5, Satara. At Post Tasgaon, Taluka – Satara, Satara – 415004. Maharashtra. Pan: Aeopj3334G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Dr.Prayag Jha & Adv. Pratik Jha –Ar’S Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde –Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 11/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025 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], Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.05.2023 For The A.Y.2015-16 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 27.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

admitted and the issue may be set aside for verification. Submission of ld.DR : 3. Ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the revenue vehemently opposed admission of Additional Evidence. Ld.DR took us through the Order of the ld.CIT(A) and AO. Ld.DR submitted that even before the ld.CIT(A) assessee filed appeal with ... Ld.AR has filed Affidavits of these persons which are coincidentally executed on 23.12.2024 and notarized on 23.12.2024. 9. Ld.AR filed a petition for admission of additional evidence. Ld.AR requested that the Affidavits may admitted as additional evidences. ITA No.1360/PUN/2024 [A] 10. It is important to mention here that all these

Rajnish Wellness Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

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

ITA 3471/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2018-19 Rajnish Wellness Limited, Income Tax Officer, 6Th Floor, Ward-5(3)(1), Navjivan Commercial, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Lamington Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008. Pan : Aahcr3491G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-09-2025 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 25-03-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Briefly The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Which Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny To Verify The Genuineness Of The Large Scale Promotion Expenses. Notices U/S. 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟) Were Issued Calling For The Necessary

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 37(1)

matter to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh including condonation of delay as well as application seeking admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A and the assessee is also provided one more opportunity, where the matter could be represented before the Ld.CIT(A). In light