← 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

ITO, Ludhiana vs. M/S A.K. Exports, Ludhiana

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue as well as the appeal and cross-objection of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 800/CHANDI/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.799/Chandi/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.965/Chandi/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.375/Chandi/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.800/Chandi/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Ito M/S A.K. Exports बनाम/ Ward 1(1) F-1, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar Vs. Ludhiana Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagfa-1903-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.988/Chandi/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 6. Co No/25.Chandi/2010 (In Ita No.375/Chandi/2010) (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) M/S A.K. Exports Ito F-1, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar बनाम/ Vs. Ward 1(1) Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagfa-1903-N

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal(CIT) a/w Shri Vivek
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69CSection 80I

evidence could not have been made available, at all, at any stage of proceedings before lower authorities. The Ld. AR has vehemently opposed admission of additional evidences at this stage of proceedings. However, we are of the considered opinion that the whole basis of impugned addition was show-cause notices

ITO, Ludhiana vs. M/S A.K. Exports, Ludhiana

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue as well as the appeal and cross-objection of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 799/CHANDI/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.799/Chandi/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.965/Chandi/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.375/Chandi/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.800/Chandi/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Ito M/S A.K. Exports बनाम/ Ward 1(1) F-1, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar Vs. Ludhiana Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagfa-1903-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.988/Chandi/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 6. Co No/25.Chandi/2010 (In Ita No.375/Chandi/2010) (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) M/S A.K. Exports Ito F-1, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar बनाम/ Vs. Ward 1(1) Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagfa-1903-N

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal(CIT) a/w Shri Vivek
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69CSection 80I

evidence could not have been made available, at all, at any stage of proceedings before lower authorities. The Ld. AR has vehemently opposed admission of additional evidences at this stage of proceedings. However, we are of the considered opinion that the whole basis of impugned addition was show-cause notices

M/S A.K. Exports, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ludhiana

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue as well as the appeal and cross-objection of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 988/CHANDI/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.799/Chandi/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.965/Chandi/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.375/Chandi/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.800/Chandi/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Ito M/S A.K. Exports बनाम/ Ward 1(1) F-1, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar Vs. Ludhiana Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagfa-1903-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.988/Chandi/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 6. Co No/25.Chandi/2010 (In Ita No.375/Chandi/2010) (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) M/S A.K. Exports Ito F-1, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar बनाम/ Vs. Ward 1(1) Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagfa-1903-N

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal(CIT) a/w Shri Vivek
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69CSection 80I

evidence could not have been made available, at all, at any stage of proceedings before lower authorities. The Ld. AR has vehemently opposed admission of additional evidences at this stage of proceedings. However, we are of the considered opinion that the whole basis of impugned addition was show-cause notices

ITO -I(1), Ludhiana vs. M/S A.K. Exports, Ludhiana

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue as well as the appeal and cross-objection of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 965/CHANDI/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.799/Chandi/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.965/Chandi/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.375/Chandi/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.800/Chandi/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Ito M/S A.K. Exports बनाम/ Ward 1(1) F-1, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar Vs. Ludhiana Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagfa-1903-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.988/Chandi/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 6. Co No/25.Chandi/2010 (In Ita No.375/Chandi/2010) (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) M/S A.K. Exports Ito F-1, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar बनाम/ Vs. Ward 1(1) Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagfa-1903-N

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal(CIT) a/w Shri Vivek
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69CSection 80I

evidence could not have been made available, at all, at any stage of proceedings before lower authorities. The Ld. AR has vehemently opposed admission of additional evidences at this stage of proceedings. However, we are of the considered opinion that the whole basis of impugned addition was show-cause notices

ITO, Ludhiana vs. M/S A.K. Exports, Ludhiana

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue as well as the appeal and cross-objection of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 375/CHANDI/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.799/Chandi/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.965/Chandi/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.375/Chandi/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.800/Chandi/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Ito M/S A.K. Exports बनाम/ Ward 1(1) F-1, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar Vs. Ludhiana Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagfa-1903-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.988/Chandi/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 6. Co No/25.Chandi/2010 (In Ita No.375/Chandi/2010) (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) M/S A.K. Exports Ito F-1, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar बनाम/ Vs. Ward 1(1) Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagfa-1903-N

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal(CIT) a/w Shri Vivek
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69CSection 80I

evidence could not have been made available, at all, at any stage of proceedings before lower authorities. The Ld. AR has vehemently opposed admission of additional evidences at this stage of proceedings. However, we are of the considered opinion that the whole basis of impugned addition was show-cause notices

Shobha Suman Mishra, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ajmer

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

ITA 576/JPR/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.576/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2014-15 Shobha Suman Mishra 5/6, B Block, Keshav Marg, Panchsheel, Ajmer-305 001 अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward 2(2) Ajmer प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AGCPS7545N निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Sanjeev Jain, CA राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 69A

confirmed the addition made by Ld. Assessing Officer. 3. Further, Ld. CIT(Appeal) has stated that "the appellant has made no application for admission of Additional Evidence, hence evidences submitted by the appellant in these proceedings cannot be considered for adjudication of the appear. In this regard your kind attention ... dated 20/09/2022) where Hon'ble ITAT Mumbal held that "We find that Rule 46A, does not mandate compulsorily by making written application for admission of additional evidence. It is for the learned CIT (A) to record the reason if such additional evidences are admitted. Therefore, according to us, the learned

Banumathy Educational Service Trust, Thanjavur vs. ITO, Exemptions, Ward, Trichy

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

ITA 1228/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1228/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Banumathy Educational Service Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Best Matriculation School, Mariamman Exemptions Ward, Koil Road, Bye Pass Rountana, Trichy. Thanjavur 613 001. [Pan:Aabtb6646G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.01.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 30 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

accept the fresh evidence and adjudicate the issue on merits. 6. The ld. DR Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT submits that the admission of additional evidence under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules is not automatic and it is the duty of the assessee to properly make out a reasonable