← 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

ACIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi vs. Acc India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

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

ITA 650/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaacit, Circle 1(1), Vs. Acc India Pvt. Ltd. 5Th Floor, 525, Basement, Room No. 159-A, C.R. Building, New Delhi Jasola, South Delhi, New Delhi -19 (Pan: Aalca9219Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 72/Del/2023 (Ita No. 650/Del/2020) (Ay 2015-16) Acc India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 1(1), 5Th Floor, 525, Basement, New Delhi Jasola, South Delhi, New Delhi-19 (Pan: Aalca9219Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Acc India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 1(1), 5Th Floor, 525, Basement, New Delhi Jasola, South Delhi, New Delhi-19 (Pan: Aalca9219Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr. Assesseeby : Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. Rajakumar, Adv.

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. Rajakumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

Anant Kumar vs. CIT 28 ITR 278 wherein the Hon’ble Court has held that application under Rule 46A must be made for admission of additional evidences with reasons showing the purposes of the additional evidences and also reasons for not producing it earlier.” 4. Brief facts of the case

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Goldendunes Heights LLP, Jaipur

ITA 1352/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR a
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 68

written submissions of appellant made from time to time. 5.2.1 Before deciding the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant the issue of admissibility of additional evidences filed under rule 46A of IT Rules. 1962 to be decided. In the instant case the appellant has filed additional evidences vide ... another opportunity was given to submit report by 17.09.2024, ld. AO responded the same, though without making any comment/enquiry from the assessee, the admission of additional evidence was objected. Relevant para of ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under— 18 Goldendunes Heights LLP,Jaipur “5.2.3 Remand report was called

Shri Mahaveer Nagari Sahakari Pat San Kini, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Ichalkaranji, Ichalkaranji

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 1990/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Harish Bist
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 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. 4 8. Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act provides that the sum received in respect of any income by way of interest

Income Tax Officer-42(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Kartik Gunwantrai Shah, Mumbai

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

ITA 2182/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailincome Tax Officer – 42(1)(3), Room No.735, 7Th Floor Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400051 V/S Kartik Gunwantrai Shah, Prop. Gati Solvochem, B-3, Jalaram, Ganjawala Lane, ……………… Respondent Borivali (West), Mumbai - 400092 Pan : Awaps4637D Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Vikas Chandra, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Chandra, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 46A

rejected. The learned Additional / Joint CIT(A), after considering the remand report filed by the AO, denied the assessee's request for admission of additional evidence and proceeded to decide the appeal based on the details available on record. The learned Additional / Joint CIT(A), vide impugned order, upheld

Jyoti Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi

In the result, ground no. 5 of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4983/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं.4983/िद"ी/2018 (िन.व. 2014-15) Jyoti Jain, 25/94, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi 110007 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan No: Adipj-0775-G बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 19(2), New Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta & Ms. Vanshika Mehta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 54F

incurred on construction of a residential house, the assessee furnished additional evidences before the CIT(A) and filed application under Rule 46A for admissions of additional evidences. This fact is emanating from the impugned order para 3.1 where the submissions of the assessee are recorded ... assessee had filed application dated 25.09.2017 under Rule 46A for the admission of additional evidences pertaining to investment of Rs.1,51,74,950/- towards construction of house on plot no. 5/21 Roop Nagar, Delhi. The assessee has raised a specific ground of appeal i.e. ground no. 11 before

Late Sh. Lakha Singh Through Legal Heir Hira Singh Dera Pyara Singh Barna Thanesar Kurukshetra, Kurukshetra vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Aaykar Bhawan, Near Community Hall Sector-5, Kurukshetra Haryana, Kurukshetra

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

ITA 1151/CHANDI/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

failed to admit the additional evidence as furnished before him and rejecting the submissions of the assessee for admission of additional evidence on surmises & conjectures. 2 5. Notwithstanding the above said grounds of appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 60 lacs on account ... documentary proof of hospitalisation or medical incapacity was placed on record. Hence, the CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the plea for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A. 7.2 It was further contended that the assessment order was passed prior to the death of the assessee, and therefore valid

Gomesh Dwivedi, Padra Rewa vs. ITO-Rewa, Ditrict Rewa (Mp), Rewa

In the result, ITA Nos. 15 & 16/JAB/2024 are held to be allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 16/JAB/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.15 & 16/Jab/2024 A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Gomesh Dwivedi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No.3, Durga Nagar Padra Huzur Rewa, M.P. Rewa, M.P. Pan:Akcpd5536A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Abhijeet Shrivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

argue that as the order had been passed ex parte, there was sufficient cause to justify the admission of additional evidences. The ld. CIT(A) forwarded the additional evidences filed by the assessee to the AO for a remand report. In the remand report, the ld. AO submitted that

Gomesh Dwivedi, Padra vs. ITO-Rewa, District Rewa (Mp), Rewa

In the result, ITA Nos. 15 & 16/JAB/2024 are held to be allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 15/JAB/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.15 & 16/Jab/2024 A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Gomesh Dwivedi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No.3, Durga Nagar Padra Huzur Rewa, M.P. Rewa, M.P. Pan:Akcpd5536A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Abhijeet Shrivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

argue that as the order had been passed ex parte, there was sufficient cause to justify the admission of additional evidences. The ld. CIT(A) forwarded the additional evidences filed by the assessee to the AO for a remand report. In the remand report, the ld. AO submitted that

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S North West Sales and Marketing P. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2984/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 68

Ld.AO and its deletion by the Ld.CIT(A). The ground of appeal No.4 is regarding admission of additional evidences by the Ld.CIT(A) in violation of provisions of Rule 46A. As the three grounds of appeal are inter-connected, they are dealt together. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee explaining ... make an addition of Rs. 32,47,77,750/- u/s 68 of the Act. Before the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee requested for admission of additional evidences. The Ld.CIT(A) requested the Ld.AO to submit a remand report after examining the issue of veracity of impugned unsecured loans. The Ld.Counsel informed

Vasudhevan Muralidharan, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Erode

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

ITA 1980/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1980/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Vasudhevan The Income Tax Officer, Muralidharan, Vs. Ward 1(1), 25, Bangalore Ayyengar Bakery, Erode 1St Street, Varnapuram, Bhavani – 638 302. Pan: Bnrpm 8315H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam,Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri T.S.Lakshmi VenkataramanFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam,JCIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54FSection 68

present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 for admission of additional evidence. The additional evidence that is sought to be admitted is copy of patta, chitta and adangal extracts to establish that lands sold ... extent of Rs.68,50,000/-. The assessee has filed a petition under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Rules, 1963 for admission of additional evidence. The additional evidence is with regard to documents to show that the lands sold are agricultural lands and are not liable for capital gains

Up State Food & Essential Commodities Corpn Ltd, Lucknow vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Office- 6, Lucknow

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 692/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2017-18 U.P. State Food & Essential V. The Dcit-6 Commodities Corpn. Ltd. Lucknow 17, Gokhale Marg Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aaacu3257G (Appellant) (Respondent) S.A. No.03/Lkw/2025 [Arising Out Of Ita No.692/Lkw/2024] Assessment Year: 2017-18 U.P. State Food & Essential V. The Dcit-6 Commodities Corpn. Ltd. Lucknow 17, Gokhale Marg Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aaacu3257G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Smt. Shivani Gupta, C.A. Department By: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri Neeraj Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 26

compliance by the assessee during the course of first appellant proceedings. It is also seen that the assessee has filed an application for admission of additional evidences before the Tribunal, which is duly supported by an Affidavit explaining the reasons as to why the additional evidences could not be submitted

Shobha Sundar Babu, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 493/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate –Standing
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250

filed present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has also filed a paper book comprising 51 pages containing therein the petition for admission of additional evidences, sanction letters issued by ING Vysya Bank, Assignment agreement between ING Vysya Bank Ltd and M/s Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd., Statement of dues

Himabindu, Bangalore vs. ITO., Ward-1, Chittoor

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

ITA 799/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69Section 69A

that the matter be remanded to the Ld. AO for fresh consideration. 7. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) opposed the admission of additional evidence, contending that adequate opportunity had already been provided at both assessment and appellate stage. The assessee failed to discharge his onus and cannot

Papi Reddy Ankannagari, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1312/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1309 To 1312/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2019-20) Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Hyderabad. Tax, Pan: Adopa4689A Central Circle 3(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad-11 (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 28.11.2024, 02.12.2024, 29.11.2024 & 28.11.2024 Respectively For The A.Y. 2019-20. Since These Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & For The Same A.Y. 2019-20, They

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR
Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

properly respond before the lower authorities. Thus, the ITA Nos.1309 to 1312/Hyd/2024 5 orders were passed ex parte. He therefore prayed for admission of additional evidence now filed before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that, three issues were involved in the appeal of the assessee i.e. (a) Addition

Papi Reddy Ankannagari, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1311/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1309 To 1312/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2019-20) Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Hyderabad. Tax, Pan: Adopa4689A Central Circle 3(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad-11 (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 28.11.2024, 02.12.2024, 29.11.2024 & 28.11.2024 Respectively For The A.Y. 2019-20. Since These Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & For The Same A.Y. 2019-20, They

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR
Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

properly respond before the lower authorities. Thus, the ITA Nos.1309 to 1312/Hyd/2024 5 orders were passed ex parte. He therefore prayed for admission of additional evidence now filed before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that, three issues were involved in the appeal of the assessee i.e. (a) Addition

Papi Reddy Ankannagari, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1310/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1309 To 1312/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2019-20) Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Hyderabad. Tax, Pan: Adopa4689A Central Circle 3(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad-11 (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 28.11.2024, 02.12.2024, 29.11.2024 & 28.11.2024 Respectively For The A.Y. 2019-20. Since These Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & For The Same A.Y. 2019-20, They

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR
Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

properly respond before the lower authorities. Thus, the ITA Nos.1309 to 1312/Hyd/2024 5 orders were passed ex parte. He therefore prayed for admission of additional evidence now filed before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that, three issues were involved in the appeal of the assessee i.e. (a) Addition

Papi Reddy Ankannagari, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1309/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1309 To 1312/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2019-20) Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Hyderabad. Tax, Pan: Adopa4689A Central Circle 3(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad-11 (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 28.11.2024, 02.12.2024, 29.11.2024 & 28.11.2024 Respectively For The A.Y. 2019-20. Since These Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & For The Same A.Y. 2019-20, They

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR
Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

properly respond before the lower authorities. Thus, the ITA Nos.1309 to 1312/Hyd/2024 5 orders were passed ex parte. He therefore prayed for admission of additional evidence now filed before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that, three issues were involved in the appeal of the assessee i.e. (a) Addition

Icg-Iisu Alumnae Association-Bandhan, Jaipur vs. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur

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

ITA 923/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT-DR (Thru:V.C.)
Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 254

assessee vide application dated 25- 06-2025 prayed under rule 29 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 for admission of additional evidence which are as under:- ‘’The Appellant most humbly prays for admission of the following additional evidences which is in supersession of the earlier Prayer for Additional Evidences ... Deemed to be University) Trust u/s 12AA is a certificate issued by the Department. However, as a matter of precaution, Prayer for admission of Additional Evidence is made. It is also submitted that this Certificate was also before the Hon'ble ITAT in the First Round of appeal

Nexgen Animators Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 782/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 782/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sudarshan, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69A

order of the FAA, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, assessee has filed the petition for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Rules, 1963. The additional evidence filed before the Tribunal is audited financials of the assessee company

Jiteshbhai Ramniklal Nagada, Jamnagar vs. ITO, Ward 2(6), Jamnagar

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 46/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.39/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) Kantaben Ramniklal Nagda Vs. Ito, Wd- 2(6), Jamnagar Flat No. 603, K D Tower, Oswal Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Colony, Jamnagar Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar-361004 Jamnagar - 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agtpn7366D (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 50CSection 56Section 68

verification of supporting documents submitted.” 14. We note that Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 governs admission of additional evidence before ITAT, which states as follows: “The parties shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, either oral or documentary, before the Tribunal