← 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

Shakeel Abdul Azeez Mohammad, Jalgaon vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Jalgaon

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

ITA 1115/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1115/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shakeel Abdul Azeez V The Income Tax Officer, Mohammad, S Ward-1(1), Jalgaon. Kachchi Chawl, Indira Nagar, Shahu Nagar, Jalgaon-425001. Maharashtra. Pan: Byfpm1596K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Vinay V Kawdia – Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2025

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 69A

ld.AR filed evidence in the form of e-proceedings acknowledgment to demonstrate elaborate submission made by assessee before ld.CIT(A) and petition for admission of additional evidence. Ld.AR has filed these documents from page no.15 to 100 of the paper book. Ld.AR submitted that before the ld.CIT(A), Assessee

Vama Infra, Surat vs. ACIT Circle-3(3), Surat

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

ITA 184/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 68Section 69Section 69C

Counsel for the assesee drew our attention to written submissions filed before Ld. CIT(A), in which a specific request was made for admission of additional evidence. However, this request for submission of additional evidence was denied to the assessee on the ground that the assessee did not submit

Devi Anusuiya Vidya Sansthan, 1812 A B Road, Lasudia Mori Dewas Naka Indore vs. CIT Exemption, Bhopal

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 924/IND/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 12ASection 25Section 80G

filed or may allow such evidence to be adduced.” 7.1 Thus, the basic ingredient for exercising powers under Rule 29 for admission of additional evidence is that Tribunal should come to the conclusion that a particular document would be necessary for consideration to enable it to pass orders ... sending it to the CIT for examination and decision.” 7.3 Therefore, in view of above discussion, the objection raised by Ld. DR against admission of additional evidences filed by assessee is rejected. 8. In the final result, we agree to remand this matter to the file

Devi Anusuiya Vidya Sansthan, A B Road, Lasudia Mori Dewak Naka vs. CIT Exemtion, Bhopal

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 830/IND/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 12ASection 25Section 80G

filed or may allow such evidence to be adduced.” 7.1 Thus, the basic ingredient for exercising powers under Rule 29 for admission of additional evidence is that Tribunal should come to the conclusion that a particular document would be necessary for consideration to enable it to pass orders ... sending it to the CIT for examination and decision.” 7.3 Therefore, in view of above discussion, the objection raised by Ld. DR against admission of additional evidences filed by assessee is rejected. 8. In the final result, we agree to remand this matter to the file

Jaigurudev Aashram Prabandhan Trust, Gram Mirjapur Tejaji Nagar vs. CIT Exemption, Bhopal

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 823/IND/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 12ASection 80G

filed or may allow such evidence to be adduced.” 7.1. Thus, the basic ingredient for exercising powers under Rule 29 for admission of additional evidence is that Tribunal should come to the conclusion that a particular document would be necessary for consideration to enable it to pass orders ... sending it to the CIT for examination and decision.” Therefore, in view of above discussion, the objection raised by Ld. DR against admission of additional evidences filed by assessee is rejected. 8. In the final result, we agree to remand this matter to the file

Jaigurudev Aashram Prabandhan Trust, Gram Mirjapur Tejaji Nagar vs. CIT Exemption, Bhopal

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 822/IND/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 12ASection 80G

filed or may allow such evidence to be adduced.” 7.1. Thus, the basic ingredient for exercising powers under Rule 29 for admission of additional evidence is that Tribunal should come to the conclusion that a particular document would be necessary for consideration to enable it to pass orders ... sending it to the CIT for examination and decision.” Therefore, in view of above discussion, the objection raised by Ld. DR against admission of additional evidences filed by assessee is rejected. 8. In the final result, we agree to remand this matter to the file

Atharva Foundries Private Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Comissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 113/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri R.C. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37

drawings of any facility limit provided by any Bank is neither an offence nor prohibited by any law. 2. The appellant request for admission of additional evidences if any requires in support of above grounds of appeal. 3. The appellant craves, leave to add alter, amend or delete

Income Tax Officer 5(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Verve Industries Private Limited, Mumbai

Appeal are allowed

ITA 2479/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Ito 5(3)(1), Verve Industries Pvt. Ltd., 526, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K Road, Plot No. 16, Office No. 1, Ground Vs. Mumbai-400020. Floor Aman Chamber 2, Mama Permanand Marg, Opera House, Mumbai-400 004. Pan No. Aahcv 1577 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mehul TaleraFor Respondent: 09/07/2025
Section 133(6)Section 68

prescribed under Rule 46A. The admission of procedure so prescribed under Rule 46A. The admission of procedure so prescribed under Rule 46A. The admission of additional evidence without affording the Assessing Officer such vidence without affording the Assessing Officer such vidence without affording the Assessing Officer such opportunity constitutes

Tejas Arvindkumar Desai, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(3), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 516/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.516/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Tejas Arvindkumar Desai Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 202/302, Guru Pushya Ward-1(3)(3), Surat, Income Tax Vs. Apartment, Maskati Plot, Officer, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Parle Point, Surat-395 007 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaipn 4702 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

parties and perused the materials available on record. We have also deliberated on the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rule regarding admission of additional evidence and power of CIT(A) to dispose of appeal. The appellant was engaged in share/securities transactions in different segments during the year under

Rajasthan State Bharat Scout and Guide, Jaipur vs. Income-Tax Officer (Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 382/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 11(5)

raised by the Revenue is defective because the Revenue did not challenge admission of additional ground of appeal but challenged the admission of additional evidence, for which no case is made out before us. Therefore, ground No. 2 of appeal of the Revenue has no merit. The same is accordingly

Rajasthan State Bharat Scout and Guide, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Holding Charge of ITO Exemptions, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 381/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 11(5)

raised by the Revenue is defective because the Revenue did not challenge admission of additional ground of appeal but challenged the admission of additional evidence, for which no case is made out before us. Therefore, ground No. 2 of appeal of the Revenue has no merit. The same is accordingly

Chandra Bosu Babu Ramesh Yangala, Gudivada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gudivada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 214/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.214/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1 Chandra Bosu Babu Ramesh Yangala Asst. City Planner Gudiwada, Andhra Pradesh Gudivada Municipality Gudivada – 521301 Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Acspy1662Q] (अपीलधर्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri K. Siva Rama Kumar, Ca करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

Section 144Section 250

Page.23 of Sec.250 Order to his e-mail ID. 4. As per the Order u/s.250, learned CIT(Appeals) sent my petition for admission of additional evidence to JAO(ITO, Ward-1,Gudiwada) and learned Jao sent a Notice to me calling for my appearance/explanation on the said Rule.46A petition

M/S K.N.S. Exports Private Limited, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 14/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

without considering any of the facts upon which the assessee could demonstrate that the additions were unwarranted. He, therefore, made a prayer for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 and sought to file these additional evidences which were the; i. Financial account being audited

Varatharaj Venugopal, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Tirupur

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

ITA 1058/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1058/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Varatharaj Venugopal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 13, Thiruvalluvar Nagar 4Th St., Ward 1(1), Nesavalar Colony, East P.N. Road, Tiruppur. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan:Aylpv5231F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Raghavan, Advocate (Virtual) For Shri R.C. Sachin, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Raised 2 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri Raghavan, Advocate (virtual) for Shri R.C. Sachin, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

total income of the assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by rejecting the affidavits filed for admission of additional evidences by the assessee on the ground that the same were not furnished before the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order

ACIT-1(1), Indore vs. Sanjay Laddha, Indore

ITA 658/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Indore08 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi**

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

same are available at Pages 550-574 of Paper-Book. After consideration, the CIT(A) accepted this as a case fit for admission of additional evidences in terms of Rule 46A and sought remand-report from AO. The AO conducted remand proceedings and issued a query letter dated ... order as well as remand-report and pointed out that there are two objections raised by AO, namely (i) the AO objected against admission of additional evidences, and (ii) the AO also objected that the PAN/Aadhar of the customers (to whom stamps were sold by assessee) were not provided

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Chinnarasu Veeramani, Jolarpet

In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 3319/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3318/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3319/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Chinnarasu Veeramani बनाम/ Central Circle-2(4), 43A, Gandhi Road, Edayampatti Chennai. Chonnaakodiyur Village, Vs. Jolarpet-638 851 (Tn) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adkpv-3559-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas (Cit) – Ld. Dr " थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishna (Fca) & Shri Shrenik Chordia (Ca) – Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Have Identical Facts. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2015-16 Which Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19 [Cit(A)] On 17-10-

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas (CIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishna (FCA) &
Section 132Section 139Section 153CSection 69

impugned order, on this issue. The powers of Ld. CIT(A) is co-extensive with the powers of Ld. AO and therefore, the admission of additional evidences by Ld. CIT(A) could not be faulted with. 8. The addition of alleged receipts from M/s SRS Mining has been made primarily

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Chinnarasu Veeramani, Jolarpet

In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 3318/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3318/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3319/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Chinnarasu Veeramani बनाम/ Central Circle-2(4), 43A, Gandhi Road, Edayampatti Chennai. Chonnaakodiyur Village, Vs. Jolarpet-638 851 (Tn) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adkpv-3559-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas (Cit) – Ld. Dr " थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishna (Fca) & Shri Shrenik Chordia (Ca) – Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Have Identical Facts. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2015-16 Which Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19 [Cit(A)] On 17-10-

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas (CIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishna (FCA) &
Section 132Section 139Section 153CSection 69

impugned order, on this issue. The powers of Ld. CIT(A) is co-extensive with the powers of Ld. AO and therefore, the admission of additional evidences by Ld. CIT(A) could not be faulted with. 8. The addition of alleged receipts from M/s SRS Mining has been made primarily

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Chinnarasu Veeramani, Jolarpet

In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 3317/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3318/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3319/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Chinnarasu Veeramani बनाम/ Central Circle-2(4), 43A, Gandhi Road, Edayampatti Chennai. Chonnaakodiyur Village, Vs. Jolarpet-638 851 (Tn) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adkpv-3559-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas (Cit) – Ld. Dr " थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishna (Fca) & Shri Shrenik Chordia (Ca) – Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Have Identical Facts. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2015-16 Which Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19 [Cit(A)] On 17-10-

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas (CIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishna (FCA) &
Section 132Section 139Section 153CSection 69

impugned order, on this issue. The powers of Ld. CIT(A) is co-extensive with the powers of Ld. AO and therefore, the admission of additional evidences by Ld. CIT(A) could not be faulted with. 8. The addition of alleged receipts from M/s SRS Mining has been made primarily

Karunya Educational and Research Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

ITA 803/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.799/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2017-18 आयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.800/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2018-19 आयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.801/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2019-20 आयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.802/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2020-21 आयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.803/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2021-22 Karunya Educational & Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Research Trust, Central Circle-3(1), No.16, Dr.D.G.S.Dhinakaran Road, Chennai. Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-600 028. [Pan:Aaatk0225H] (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. V.Nagaprasad, Advocate & Ms.S.Revathy, F.C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. M.K.Biju, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025

For Appellant: Mr. V.Nagaprasad, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. M.K.Biju, CIT DR
Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)

admission of an additional evidence under rule 29 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. The ld. AR explained the circumstances under which admission of additional evidence was absolutely essential. In the order of assessment, the AO (in para 8.6.17) referred to some forensic analysis which was never shared with

Karunya Educational and Research Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

ITA 802/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.799/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2017-18 आयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.800/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2018-19 आयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.801/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2019-20 आयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.802/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2020-21 आयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.803/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2021-22 Karunya Educational & Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Research Trust, Central Circle-3(1), No.16, Dr.D.G.S.Dhinakaran Road, Chennai. Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-600 028. [Pan:Aaatk0225H] (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. V.Nagaprasad, Advocate & Ms.S.Revathy, F.C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. M.K.Biju, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025

For Appellant: Mr. V.Nagaprasad, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. M.K.Biju, CIT DR
Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)

admission of an additional evidence under rule 29 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. The ld. AR explained the circumstances under which admission of additional evidence was absolutely essential. In the order of assessment, the AO (in para 8.6.17) referred to some forensic analysis which was never shared with