← 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

M/S. I G Petrochemicals Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 804/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri S Parthasarathi and Smt. Pratibha RFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 195Section 40

deduct TDS. The additional evidence was not considered by the Ld. CIT(A) on the reason that assessee has not filed petition for admission of additional evidence. In our opinion, the additional evidence furnished by assessee is very important to consider so as to render substantial justice. Accordingly

Ugc Text and Build Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -11(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1927/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 12.08.2025
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

company being the reason for not furnishing the relevant documents before the ld. AO. The assessee further filed an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A(1)(c) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 pertaining to the issue of share application money which was rejected

Ugc Text and Build Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 11(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1926/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 12.08.2025
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

company being the reason for not furnishing the relevant documents before the ld. AO. The assessee further filed an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A(1)(c) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 pertaining to the issue of share application money which was rejected

Ugc Text and Build Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 11(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1922/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 12.08.2025
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

company being the reason for not furnishing the relevant documents before the ld. AO. The assessee further filed an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A(1)(c) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 pertaining to the issue of share application money which was rejected

M/S Geodis Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3196/DEL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 3195/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ita No. 3196/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Geodis Overseas Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Building No.5,Tower B, Income Tax, 10Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Company Circle- Ii(1), Phase Iii, Gurgaon Chennai-34 Pin: 122 002 Pan No. Aaacc6168L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 92C

additional evidence filed by the Appellant in respect of disallowance of interest on working capital was not accompanied with an application for admission of additional evidence as per Rule 46A of the Rules. 13. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred ... summarily rejecting the additional evidence submitted by the Appellant for substantiating the 50:50 revenue sharing model. The Appellant had filed application for admission of additional evidence with the predecessor of CIT(A) which was forwarded the under Rule 46A to the jurisdictional Officer vide letter dated June

M/S Geodis Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3195/DEL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 92C

additional evidence filed by the Appellant in respect of disallowance of interest on working capital was not accompanied with an application for admission of additional evidence as per Rule 46A of the Rules. 13. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred ... summarily rejecting the additional evidence submitted by the Appellant for substantiating the 50:50 revenue sharing model. The Appellant had filed application for admission of additional evidence with the predecessor of CIT(A) which was forwarded the under Rule 46A to the jurisdictional Officer vide letter dated June

Rajendra Kumar Agrawal, Jaipur vs. ACIT Cen Cir 1, C-Scheme, Jaipur

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

ITA 538/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Tetuka, Adv., ARFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

during the appeal proceedings before Ld. CIT(A) has filed an application on 05.12.2023 (Refer page No. 85-89 of Paper Book) for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules to bring on record the remaining 53 confirmations as these confirmations have been obtained after ... soon as confirmation was received from all 53 parties, the Appellant filed before Ld. CIT(A) has filed an application on 05.12.2023 for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules to bring on record those remaining 53 confirmations, as these confirmations were obtained post-passing

Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Alpesh Manharlal Mistry, Ahhmedabad

In the result, the appeal field by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 777/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69

called for Remand Report from the assessing officer under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. The Assessing Officer objected to the admission of additional evidences since the same are not covered under the four boundaries as envisaged in Rule 46A. However the Ld. A.O. has not offered any comments ... r.w.s. 147 of IT Act was passed by assessing officer. (iii) During the remand proceedings, the AO had filed objection against admission of additional evidences filed by assessee before Appellate authority, as the case is not covered under Rule 46A of IT Rules 1962. (b) The appellant craves leave

Pinkeshmumar Melapchand Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(2)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 599/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13 Pinkeshkumar Melapchand Shah The Ito, Ward-2(2)(4) B-1, 1St Floor, Abhinandan Flat Vs. Ahmedabad. Opp: Kothari Tower Ramnagar, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad 380005.Gujarat. Pan : Aeaps 0609 D. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Sunil Maloo, Ca Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/08/2025

For Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

detailed explanation vide letter dated 24.12.2022 for the earlier non- compliance due to inadvertence. The Ld. CIT(A), however, rejected the request for admission of additional evidence, holding that although the assessee had uploaded fresh documents during appellate proceedings, no proper application under Rule 46A was filed, and that ... Rs.16,69,608/-u/s 69A by rejecting additional evidence submitted under rule 46A of Income Tax Rules 1962 despite a letter requesting for admission of additional evidence dated 24 December 2022 explaining reasons for inadvertent noncompliance during Re-Assessment Proceedings u/s 147 was furnished. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) grossly

Nehal Ramanbhai Patel, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-3 Now Ward-1, Anand

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 131/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2013-20140 Nehal Ramanbhai Patel Ito, Ward-(3) Gold Street Pamol, Borsad Vs. Anand. Anand-388 540, Gujarat Pan : Atdpp 4094 K (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Darshan Belani, Ar Assessee By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

fact submitted a detailed written representation along with supporting documents before the CIT(A)-4, Vadodara, vide letter dated 10.06.2018, requesting for admission of additional evidences. A copy of the said letter is placed at pages 10 to 12 of the paper book. The AR pointed out that the assessee

M/S Hattaragi Shri Basaveshwar Co Operative Credit Society Ltd, Hukkeri vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax (ADIT), Bengaluru

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

ITA 82/PAN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.82/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2021-22) Hattaragi Shri Basaveshwar Vs Adit, Cooperative Credit Society Ltd, Cpc, . At Post Hattargi Electronic City, Taluka Hukkeri, Bangalore-560500, Belgaum-591243, Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan .No. Aaaas5618K (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 80P(2)(d)

Ld.AR emphasized that the assesse has submitted the details as called for by the authorities. The assessee is filling the application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of ITAT rules with English translation of the profit & loss account and the balance sheet which could not be submitted before

Guru Nanak Builders and Developers, Pune vs. National Faceles Appeal Centre (NFAC), Pune

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

ITA 1881/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.1881/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Guru Nanak Builders & Nfac, Pune Developers S. No. 232/1, Opp. Dena Bank, Pune Vs. Nashik Road Bhosari, Pune-411039 Maharashtra Pan-Aapfg0635A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Shri Hari Krishan & Miss Arrchena Shetty Department By: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing: 07-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22-08-2025 आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Shri Hari Krishan & MissFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

received from Smt. Raji N. Kataria and Shri Santkumar R. Budhani respectively. He further referred to the application for admission of additional evidence placed at Paper Book page No. 66-88 and stated that if an opportunity is granted and the additional evidence are examined by the AO the assessee

Lambodar Gold, Loni Kalbhor Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Pune

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 1381/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Aug 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

made by the assessing officer involving section 69A of the Act. 3. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested for admission of additional evidence enclosed in the Paper Book from Page No. 1-49 (Except page No. 04-20) which have not been submitted before the lower authorities

Aijaz Mohiuddin, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 7(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 272/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.272/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Aijas Mohiuddin Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 7(1) Pan:Ajbpa3676Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 31/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated, 2/12/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Contrary To The Facts & Also The Law Applicable To The Facts Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Not Justified In Dismissing The Appeal Ex-Parte.

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

bank account of the assessee. The learned Counsel for the assessee has also referred to the petition filed by the assessee for admission of additional evidence and submitted that due to the reasons as explained above, the assessee could not produce the relevant details and evidence to explain the source

Ananda Prasad Venigala, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1384/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1384/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Ananda Prasad Venigala, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan:Aewpp1096B (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: 31/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 06/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Ananda Prasad Venigala (“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 18.11.2024 For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 68

assessment. He further invited our attention to para 5.1 of the Ld. CIT(A)’s order, which states that no application for admission of additional evidence was made and no reasons were provided for not filing the documents earlier. Accordingly, the Ld. DR submitted that the additional evidence should

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Adaab Hotels Ltd, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4677/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit, Vs. Adaab Hotels Limited, New Delhi. 81, Adchini, Sr. Aurobindo Marg, Delhi – 110 016. (Pan : Aabca0850G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Shri Parth Singhal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ramesh Chand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2025 Date Of Order : 06.08.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 09.08.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs 1,70,52,504/- Made U/S 68 Of The Act Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Company Has Failed To Produce The Relevant Document As Required By The Assessing Officer During The Assessment Proceedings. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,70,52,504/- Made U/S 68 Of The Act By Ao, On The Basis Of Fresh/New Evidences Produced By The Assessee During The Appellate Proceedings Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessee Has Failed To Produce

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chand, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 68

Kumar vs. CIT, 288 ITR 278 wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that application under the rule 46A must be made for admission of additional evidences with reasons showing the purpose of the additional evidences and reasons for not producing it earlier.” 2. Brief facts of the case

Arunkumar Mithalal Soni, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23-1-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 6687/MUM/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nirav Shah & Shri Viraj BhayaniFor Respondent: 07.05.2025
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 48Section 69A

assessment, for the reason that the ld. AO passed an ex parte order and the assessee is said to have filed application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A before the appellate authority in terms of Proviso to Section 251(1)(a) of the Act inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2024, where

Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Office, Feroj Khimjibhai Complex, Belagavi vs. S G Copper Products Pvt Ltd, Vaze Galli, M Vadgaon, Bgm

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 166/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.166/Pan/2023 & C.O.No.4/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18 ) I T O Ward -1 Vs S G Copper Products Civil Hospital Road, Pvt Limited, . Belgaum-590001. 125/A, Vazegalli, Karnataka. Vadgaon, Belgaum-590005, Karnataka. Pan .No. Aancs3201P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Revenue By Smt.Rijula Uniyal .Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri. Mahantesh K Hospeth.Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 31.07.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 01.08.2025 Order Per Bench: The Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Nfac Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. & The Assessee Has Filed Cross Objection. 2.At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That There Is A Delay In Filing The Cross Objections Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal & The Assesse Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. Whereas, The Facts Mentioned Are Reasonable & The Ld. Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Cross Objections. The Revenue Has Raised

Ld.AR emphasized that the assesse has submitted the details as called for by the authorities. And The assessee is filling the application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of ITAT 4 ITA. No.166/PAN/2023 & C.O.No..4/PAN/2024. S G Copper Products Pvt Limited. rules along with the independent audit report

Alkaben Nileshbhai Bujad, Jamnagar vs. ITO Ward 2 (7), Jamnagar

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

ITA 500/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.500/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Alkaben Nileshbhaibujad Vs. Ito, Ward – 2(7), 401, Madhav Villa, Nr. Sainik Bhavan, Income Tax Office, Naghedi, S/S Street,Jamnagar – 361005 Jamnagar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bznpb1124R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Manek, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

therefore remand the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit after following the prescribed procedure for admission of additional evidences as prescribed by law and after giving due opportunity to explain the case and adjudicate the matter according

Calicut Chamber of Commerece and Industry, Calicut vs. ITO, Ward 2(3), Kozhikode

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 666/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

failed to consider the submission and documentary evidence placed on record and summarily dismissed the appeal, without following the procedure laid down for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A. He further stated no opportunity of hearing was granted. No personal hearing- either physical or via VC-was afforded. While