← 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

Kantaben Ramniklal Nagda, Jamnagar vs. ITO, Ward 2(6), Jamnagar

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

ITA 39/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

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

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

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

Bench: Him.

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

case of the assessee before the Hon'ble ITAT, the assessee has separately moved application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules for admission of additional evidences, which were filed before the Learned CIT(A) and have now been filed before the Hon'ble Tribunal. The Hon'ble Tribunal

Ramesh Babulal Patel, Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Mehsana

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

ITA 854/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.853/Ahd/2025 & 854/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Ramesh Babulal Patel The Ito बनाम/ C/O. Gayatri Industries, Ward-1 V/S. 271, Gidc Phase-2 Mehsana – 384 002 Mehsana – 384 002 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ahhpp 4902 E (अपीलाथ'/ Appellant) (!( यथ'/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri Jinesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 250Section 68

Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the delay may be condoned. Apart from that, the assessee has also filed an application for admission of additional evidences and it has been submitted that the alleged transaction of the amount of Rs.4,19,11,09,859/- (AY 2016-17) was entered

Ramesh Babulal Patel, Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Mehsana

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

ITA 853/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.853/Ahd/2025 & 854/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Ramesh Babulal Patel The Ito बनाम/ C/O. Gayatri Industries, Ward-1 V/S. 271, Gidc Phase-2 Mehsana – 384 002 Mehsana – 384 002 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ahhpp 4902 E (अपीलाथ'/ Appellant) (!( यथ'/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri Jinesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 250Section 68

Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the delay may be condoned. Apart from that, the assessee has also filed an application for admission of additional evidences and it has been submitted that the alleged transaction of the amount of Rs.4,19,11,09,859/- (AY 2016-17) was entered

Late Radhakrishnan, L/R Smt. R.Sarguna, Vellore vs. ITO, Ncw-11(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1687/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1687/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 115BSection 250Section 69

order of the FAA, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee’s legal representative has filed a petition for admission of additional evidence as per Rule 29 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. The Ld.AR submitted that the additional evidence now produced before the Tribunal

JCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Hewlett Packard India Sales P. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1252/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 40

case that assessee did not provide reconciliation before him but before the ld CIT (A). There is no application of admission of additional evidence filed before the ld CIT (A). It is the claim of the ld AR that all those details which were available before the ld AO were

Hewlett Pakcard India Sales Private Limited, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1245/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 40

case that assessee did not provide reconciliation before him but before the ld CIT (A). There is no application of admission of additional evidence filed before the ld CIT (A). It is the claim of the ld AR that all those details which were available before the ld AO were

Channan Singh, Sangrur vs. Jao Income Tax Officer, Ward Sunam, Punjab

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 740/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.740/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Channan Singh Ito Ward Sunam बनाम/ 125, Ward No 7, Koko Majri, Sunam Mata Modi Road, Preet Nagar Vs. Sangrur-148028 Sunam, Sangrur. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Cxups-2467-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) -Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-09-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 24-03-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 30-12-2018. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144

same very reason. 3. During first appeal, the assessee’s additional evidences were subjected to remand proceedings wherein Ld. AO opposed admission of additional evidences and reiterated the assessment so framed against the assessee. The assessee pointed out that the deposit of Rs.7.50 Lacs was sourced out of earlier withdrawals

Rahul Rameshchandra Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(3)(6), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 3 of appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2967/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Rahul Rameshchandra Jain Ito, Ward – 22(3)(6), Mumbai 7A/701, Shanti Niketan Chs, Vs Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Gandhinagar, Dr. E Moses Road, Mumbai – 400012. Worli, Mumbai – 400018. [Pan: Akgpj2747M] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 254(1)Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

Such document filed in the form of paper book running from page no. 1 to 486. The assessee is also filed application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1962. The ld. AR of assessee submits that all such evidences are relevant ... assessing officer already allowed benefit of total turnover of assessee as well as cash in hand. The ld. Sr. DR objected for admission of additional evidence, on the ground that requisite condition of admission of additional ground of appeal has not been explained by assessee. In alternative submission

Smt Ramanandi Anangpuria Charitable Trust, Tagore Public School, Palwal vs. DCIT (Exemptions), Circle 2, Chandigarh

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

ITA 239/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Akul Agarwal, C.A (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur, CIT, DR (Virtual Mode)
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 144Section 80G

outset, the Ld. The AR submitted that an application filed under Rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, seeking admission of additional evidence. It was submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer did not call for the requisite certificate documents, nor was a sufficient opportunity ... have heard the rival contention of the parties and perused the material available on the record. The assessee has moved an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. It has been explained that the non-production of the said evidence

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

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

ITA 1637/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

allowed the claim made u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. 16. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed an application requesting for admission of additional evidence the contents of which read as under: “The Penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.3,37,51,947/- is upheld by CIT(A) based ... assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 30. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset filed an application requesting for admission of additional evidences, the contents of which read as under: “The Addition U/s.80IB(10) of Rs.1,18,67,128/- is upheld by CIT(A) based

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

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

ITA 1636/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

allowed the claim made u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. 16. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed an application requesting for admission of additional evidence the contents of which read as under: “The Penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.3,37,51,947/- is upheld by CIT(A) based ... assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 30. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset filed an application requesting for admission of additional evidences, the contents of which read as under: “The Addition U/s.80IB(10) of Rs.1,18,67,128/- is upheld by CIT(A) based

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

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

ITA 1635/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

allowed the claim made u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. 16. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed an application requesting for admission of additional evidence the contents of which read as under: “The Penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.3,37,51,947/- is upheld by CIT(A) based ... assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 30. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset filed an application requesting for admission of additional evidences, the contents of which read as under: “The Addition U/s.80IB(10) of Rs.1,18,67,128/- is upheld by CIT(A) based

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

ITA 1634/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

allowed the claim made u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. 16. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed an application requesting for admission of additional evidence the contents of which read as under: “The Penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.3,37,51,947/- is upheld by CIT(A) based

Talluri Venkata Ramana, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

ITA 991/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144

initial stage of the appellate proceedings filed with him his “written submissions” (Pages 1 to 2 of APB) along with a petition for admission of additional evidence (Pages 9 to 16 of APB). The Ld. AR submitted that there was no whisper of the aforesaid “written 8 Talluri Venkata Ramana ... submissions” or the application for admission of additional evidence in the order passed by the CIT(Appeals). The Ld. AR based on his aforesaid contention, submitted that as the CIT(A) had failed to consider the “written submissions” and the application filed by the assessee for admission of additional evidence

Navodaya Mutually Aided Co-Operative Thrift Society Limited, Udamgadda vs. ITO., Ward-8(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 334/HYD/2025[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.334/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S. Navodaya Mutually Aided Co- Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-8(2), Hyderabad. Operative Thrift Society Ltd., Udamgadda. Pan: Aacan0471H (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Abhiroop Bhargav, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 03/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Navodaya Mutually Aided Co- Operative Thrift Society Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 11.12.2024 For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri Abhiroop Bhargav, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

Hence, the adverse view taken only for lack of evidence during the limited demonetisation period is unjustified. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed for admission of additional evidence and deletion of the addition, or in the alternative, restoration of the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for proper verification

Acharya Sri Tulsi Mahapragya Seva Kendra Charitable Trust, Bangalore vs. CIT(Exemptions), Bangalore

ITA 951/BANG/2025[NA]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore03 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

Appellate Tribunal to decide the appeal according to law. The Appellant prays accordingly. 3. The assessee has also filed an application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 which are reproduced below for ease of reference and convenience: BEFORE ... MAIN ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, BANGALORE (PETITIONER) VS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) BANGALORE (RESPONDENT) ITA No. 951/BANG/2025 1. 2. PETITION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 29 OF INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 Acharya Sri Tulsi Mahapragya Seva Kendra Charitable Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'Petitioner

Govind Jee, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward -1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1040/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia,CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 69A

WARD 1(1), JAIPUR (iv) While it is true that the appellant has filed detailed submissions on merits and, including a request for admission of additional evidence, these cannot be entertained unless the appeal is held to be validly instituted. Since the delay has not been explained

Income Tax Officer, Gangtok vs. Krishna Prasad, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross-objection of the assessee where he has asking that addition is required to be deleted stands also dismissed

ITA 1406/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2018-19 Ito, Ward-3(1), Gangtok Krishna Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Palas Chattopadhay, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Sarkar, Sr. DR- JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 251(1)(a)

appeal raised by the revenue shows that the reasons raised in Rule 46A(3) of the I.T. Rules, this relates to the admission of additional evidence. It is very clear that the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment did not give the assessee adequate time to provide

Ashok Daulatrao Ithape, Pune vs. ITO Ward 11(1), Pune

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for

ITA 2315/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 147Section 148Section 250

according to law.” 2 ITA No.2315/PUN/2024[A] Submission of ld.AR : 2. The ld.AR for the Assessee filed a paper book with petition for admission of additional evidence. Ld. AR invited our attention to the Affidavit of the assessee. In the Affidavit, it has been submitted by Assesssee that the assessee