“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

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, Ward-5, Vapi vs. Kaushik Ramlal Patel, Gidc Vapi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 843/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

relied upon the assessment order and submitted that: i. The assessee failed to produce evidence during assessment proceedings. ii. Admission of additional evidence was in violation of Rule 46A. iii. There was mismatch between turnover declared and bank deposits. iv. Confirmations from sub-agents and Vodafone were not furnished

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax 27 1, Mumbai vs. Anil Ramchandran, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7969/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)

that the Ld. CIT(A) accepted reconciliation statements which were not properly examined by the Assessing Officer and that such acceptance amounted to admission of additional evidence without giving proper opportunity to the Assessing Officer. 6. Per contra, the Ld. Authorised Representative supported the order

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Anil Ramachandran, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7881/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)

Vinay Mittal, Sriganganagar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sriganganagar

The appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 382/JODH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blevinay Mittal Income Tax Officer, 3, J Block, Sriganganagar (Raj.) Ward No. -1, Ward No. 1 Keshrisinghpur Sriganganagar Sriganganagar Pan No. Avopm6894P Assessee By Shri Virendra Jain, Advocate (Physical) Revenue By Shri P.M. Mirdha, Addl. Cit- Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The Nfac/ Cit (A)] Dated 22.03.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 145Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 280Section 44ASection 68

pertains to the Addition of Rs. 96,13,761/- on account of unsecured loans. 17. The Ld. AR has filed an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 in the form of audited statement of accounts which could not be furnished before

Varinder Singh Gosal, Jalandhar vs. ITO Ward - 4(2) Jalandhar, Jalandhar

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

ITA 427/ASR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: None (Adjournment application)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 282Section 69

India along with various other documentary evidences and has also made an application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 praying for admission of additional evidences. 4. Considering the grounds of appeal and the materials on record, and the fresh evidence containing of 152 pages, now filed, we proceed ... filed the documentary evidences and the requisite details which he has now filed by way of this paper book along with application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of the I.T. Rules, 1963. Even now also the assessee has not appeared and is not represented by his counsel

Rajvi Enterprise Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 314/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Narpat Parihar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Urvashi Mandhan, Sr.DR

Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

impugned additions due to absence of Financial Statements (balance-sheet, etc.) of the lender parties. The Ld. Counsel has moved an application for admission of additional evidence before us, wherein, it has been pleaded that neither the Assessing Officer (AO) nor the Ld. CIT(A) called for such financial statements

Rachna Dipesh Laddha, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(2) Vadodara Gujarat, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1922/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

account of unsecured loans. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee filed written submissions along with an application under Rule 46A seeking admission of additional evidence, contending that the assessment was completed ex parte due to non-availability of her husband, who was looking after her financial affairs, and the assessee

Sonal Kamal Gupta, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Incoem Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2296/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 69A

case of Shri Jagdish Kumar Gupta is reproduced hereunder for the sake of brevity: “63. We shall first deal with the issue of admissibility of additional evidence. We have given due consideration to the oral arguments and written submission made by the Ld. DR and the contention of the Assessee ... admission of additional evidence. The additional evidence filed by the Assessee are letters exchanged between Assessee and family members with Sumitradevi Chaudhary wherein earlier MOU entered between 3 Sonal Kamal Gupta, Mumbai. them dated 07.12.2021 is referred in respect of sale of land and advance amount paid aggregating to Rs.6

Kusum Jagdishkumar Gupta, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2135/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 69A

case of Shri Jagdish Kumar Gupta is reproduced hereunder for the sake of brevity: “63. We shall first deal with the issue of admissibility of additional evidence. We have given due consideration to the oral arguments and written submission made by the Ld. DR and the contention of the Assessee ... admission of additional evidence. The additional evidence filed by the Assessee are letters exchanged between Assessee and family members with 3 Kusum Jagdishkumar Gupta, Mumbai. Sumitradevi Chaudhary wherein earlier MOU entered between them dated 07.12.2021 is referred in respect of sale of land and advance amount paid aggregating to Rs.6

M/S.Dee Control and Electric Private Limited, Kanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Kanpur

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

ITA 551/LKW/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. B.P. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

Court in the matter of Shyam Bihari vs. CIT (2012) 345 ITR 283 (Pat). He also filed a petition under Rule 29 for admission of additional evidence. It was prayed that all the FDRs/DDs/EMDs were made wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business of the assessee

Rohit Pobbathi Ashok, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2198/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri H Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 148Section 250Section 69A

despite being asked. No details to explain the source were furnished before the AO. The appellant has not filed any application for admission of additional evidence as required under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. No reasons have been given as to why the sources of the impugned

G2K Trust, Trichy vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Trichy

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3114/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3113 & 3114/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 G2K Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 5, Abila Avenue, Santosh Garden, Ward 2(1), Kulumani Main Road, Woraiyur, Tiruchirappalli. Trichy 620 102. [Pan: Aactg4763G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. K. Abhirame, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. T. Mythili, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 04.07.2025 & 15.07.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A), Panaji For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively.

For Appellant: Ms. K. Abhirame, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT

Section 143(1)

assessee, G2K Pan card, death certificate of assessee’s auditor, registered trust amendment deed of the assessee in the form of petition for admission of additional evidence, argued that the delay of 2235 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) may be condoned and direct ... drew our attention to the death certificate of the assessee’s auditor dated 20.09.2018 placed at page 12 of the petition for admission of additional evidence and submits that the assessee’s auditor expired much before the intimation order passed by the CPC under section

G2K Trust, Trichy vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Trichy

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3113/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. K. Abhirame, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT

Section 143(1)

Rajeshkumar Vithaldas Thakkar, Patan vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Patan

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

ITA 53/AHD/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Maloo, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kakoli Uttam Ghosh, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 69A

relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under: “1. Admission of Additional Evidence under Rule 29: The appellant respectfully prays that the additional evidence, ITA No.53/Ahd/2026 [Rajeshkumar Vithaldas Thakkar vs. ITO] A.Y. 2016-17 - 2 – namely the confirmation issued

Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 550/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.550/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Rajesh Kumar Mishra The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ B-5, Ananddeep Society Ward-1(2)(2) V/S. T.B. 13, Chhani Jakat Naka Vadodara – 390 007 Vadodara – 390 024 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Akzpm 140 Q (अपीलाथ'/ Appellant) (!( यथ'/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Alok Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rajiv Garg, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri Alok Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Garg, Sr.DR

Section 250

supposed to decide each of the issue on merits. Further, the assessee has moved an application for admission of additional evidences also, wherein, it has been submitted that certain documents, such as, confirmation from parties, copies of PANs and bank statements and sale invoices, etc. are required to be furnished

Deepak Mulchand Gosar, Mumbai vs. Ward 41(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 is allowed for statistical purpose and all the other grounds raised by the Assessee are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

ITA 6046/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: The Learned Cit(A) On 20/12/2022 & The Application Filed By The Assessee For Admission Of Additional Evidence To Contend That The Cit(A) Had Dismissed The Appeal After Recording Incorrect Facts.

For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 143(1)

Assessee placed reliance upon the submissions filed before the Learned CIT(A) on 20/12/2022 and the application filed by the Assessee for admission of additional evidence to contend that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal after recording incorrect facts. 3. The Learned Departmental Representative supported the order passed

Shardaben Education Trust, Gandhinagar vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2661/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2026

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-D.R

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

merits but solely on account of non-response to notices by the assessee trust. 6. The learned Counsel further filed an application for admission of additional evidence before us. In the said application, it was submitted that the assessee had inadvertently failed to respond to the notices issued ... Exemptions) for fresh consideration. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record, including the application for admission of additional evidence. 8. It is evident that the application for renewal of registration has been rejected by the CIT(Exemptions) primarily on the ground

Shardaben Education Trust, Gandhinagar vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2660/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2026

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-D.R

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Selestina Tirkey, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bilaspur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 807/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Raipur18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.807/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Selestina Tirkey C/O. Aghya Kerketta, Ganga Nagar, Phase-Ii, Behind 36 Mall, Mangla Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Arapt0339E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Yash Dhariwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

circumstances of the case and to decide taxable liability, if any, in the hands of the assessee. I find that similar issue regarding admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, 1962 has been adjudicated by the ITAT, Division Bench, Raipur in the case of Shri

Pooja Vinod Wadhwani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, -2, Kalyan

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

ITA 806/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailpooja Vinod Wadhwani, 105, Tulip Building, May Flower, Ambernath, Maharashtra - 421501 ............... Appellant Pan: Aaqpw2153G V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Kalyan, Mohan Plaza, Khadakpada, ……………… Respondent Kalyan (W) - 421301

For Appellant: M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

time, as noted above. In this regard, the assessee has also filed an application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, seeking admission of additional evidence, which forms part of the paper book from pages 57-86, which, inter alia, comprises of the copy of assessment order passed under