← 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

Bible Fellowship Centre, Pune vs. ITO (Exemption) Ward 1(2), Pune

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

ITA 995/PUN/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.995/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Bible Fellowship Centre, V The Income Tax Officer, A-202, Lunkad Heritage, S Exemption Ward-1(2), Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014. Pune. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaatb8528J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ms.Kimaya Kudva – Ar (Virtual) Revenue By Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde –Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Addl.Cit(A)/[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, For The A.Y.2015-16, Dated 25.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The Act, Dated 29.12.2017. Findings & Analysis : 2. We Have Heard Both The Parties & Perused The Records. In This Case, Assessee Is A Trust, But Assessee Trust Is Not Registered

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

ld.CIT(A). Assessee requested ld.CIT(A) to admit additional evidence which were confirmations from those persons. Ld.CIT(A) rejected assessee’s application for admission of additional evidence and confirm the assessment order. It is noted that the additional evidence could not be filed during the assessment proceedings as some

Prashant Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 1(3), Jpr, Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1340/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: The Date Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: MS. Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 142Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

context it would be pertinent to add that as noted in para 5 of this order, the appellant had uploaded an application for admission of additional evidences and the same was not backed by any of such corresponding additional evidences. The fact remains that he has not submitted any detail ... appellate proceedings inspite of being offered several opportunities from time to time for the same. However, this aspect of making an application for admission of additional evidences and contents thereof clearly underline that even as per the appellant such details were sine-qua-non for examining underlying corresponding claims. Thus

Mr. Bhimsingh Lalsingh Dasana, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 214/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 254(1)

assessment order under the head income from `other sources'. The Id. AR of the assessee submits that she had also filed application for admission of additional evidence, which includes the copy of purchase deed/agreement and sale agreement with detail of TDS and computation of total income

Vijay Kumar Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 44(2), Delhi

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

ITA 4036/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI Ms. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2

balance and interest income (supra). 3 3 Before the First Appellate Authority, the appellant had filed application for condonation of delay, application for admission of additional evidence in the shape of bank statement for preceding assessment year i.e. assessment year 2011-12 under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules

Avt Homes Private Limited vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Fbd

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

ITA 1427/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 145Section 68

appellate proceeding as observed by Ld. CIT(A) at para "5.1. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant had requested for admission of additional evidence under rule 46A and the same is admitted.". 6. Below is the brief summary/chart showing sole issue involved in the abovementioned appeal of assessee ... were fulfilled. It is also necessary to state that assessee has again filed the documents as additional evidences along with the application for admission of additional evidences before the Ld. CIT(A). Against the evidences filed, the Ld. CIT(A)appreciated the documents by accepting the same, as sated

DCIT Circle-22(2), New Delhi vs. Sb Infosoft India Pvt Ltd, Panchkula

The appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 9189/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

furnished remand report twice before the Learned CIT(A). But in both those remand reports, the Learned AO merely objected to the admission of additional evidences on the ground that sufficient opportunities were indeed given to the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings itself. No finding was given

DCIT Circle-22(2), New Delhi vs. Sb Infosoft India Pvt Ltd, Panchkula

The appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 9188/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

furnished remand report twice before the Learned CIT(A). But in both those remand reports, the Learned AO merely objected to the admission of additional evidences on the ground that sufficient opportunities were indeed given to the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings itself. No finding was given

Netalkar Power Transmission, Belagavi vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the Stay application filed by the assessee is infactious and is dismissed, and the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 222/PAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos. 222/Pan/2024 & S A.21/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2018-19 ) Netalkar Power Transmission, Vs National E – 45/2G,Dharwad Assessment Centre, . Road,Khasbag, Delhi-110001 Belagavi-590004, . Karnataka. Pan .No. Aacfn4654R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Ld.AR emphasized that the assessee has submitted the details as called for by the authorities. The assesse is filling the application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of ITAT rules along with the affidavit with details substantiating the claim of advances provided for acquisition of capital asset

M/S Surya World Educational Research and Charitable Institute, Rajpura vs. DCIT, CC-I, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed both for non- prosecution and on merits

ITA 879/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Us. Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & To Avoid Repetition, We Are Taking Ita No. 879/Del/2018 As The Lead Appeal & Reproducing The Facts, Grounds Raised & The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)Karnal, For Completeness. 2. The Case Was Listed For Hearing On 29/5/2025 , When The Matter Was Called, There Was No Appearance From The Side Of The Assessee. It Is Noted From The Record That Earlier Mr. Tej Mohan, Advocate, Was Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. However, No Adjournment Request Or Explanation For Non-Appearance Has Been Filed. The Conduct Of The Assessee Indicates A Lack Of Interest In Prosecuting The Appeal. However, Considering Non- Appearance On Behalf Of The Assessee On Many Earlier Occasions & The Nature Of The Issues Involved, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal On Merits As Well.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR (Virtual Mode)
Section 68

During the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), the assessee filed an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, for admission of additional evidence relating to corpus donations and unsecured loans. The Ld. CIT(A) forwarded the additional evidence to the Assessing Officer for a remand report

M/S Surya World Educational Research and Charitable Institute, Rajpura vs. DCIT, CC-I, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed both for non- prosecution and on merits

ITA 878/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Us. Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & To Avoid Repetition, We Are Taking Ita No. 879/Del/2018 As The Lead Appeal & Reproducing The Facts, Grounds Raised & The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)Karnal, For Completeness. 2. The Case Was Listed For Hearing On 29/5/2025 , When The Matter Was Called, There Was No Appearance From The Side Of The Assessee. It Is Noted From The Record That Earlier Mr. Tej Mohan, Advocate, Was Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. However, No Adjournment Request Or Explanation For Non-Appearance Has Been Filed. The Conduct Of The Assessee Indicates A Lack Of Interest In Prosecuting The Appeal. However, Considering Non- Appearance On Behalf Of The Assessee On Many Earlier Occasions & The Nature Of The Issues Involved, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal On Merits As Well.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR (Virtual Mode)
Section 68

During the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), the assessee filed an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, for admission of additional evidence relating to corpus donations and unsecured loans. The Ld. CIT(A) forwarded the additional evidence to the Assessing Officer for a remand report

Shrivastava Associates, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur

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

ITA 283/RPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.283/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shrivastava Associates 8, Shopping Complex, Ring Road No.1 Priyadarshini Nagar, Raipur-492 001 Pan: Abefs6510J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

therein are that an application under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 was filed by the assessee praying for admission of additional evidences which include day to day cash book for the financial year 2015-15, copy of cash flow statement/ abstract of cash book ... subsequently, the appellate order dated 5-12-2023 is also set aside. The application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules for admission of additional evidence 5 Shrivastava Associates Vs. ITO-3(1), Raipur is allowed, as it is necessary for just and proper disposal of appeal. Documents are taken

Dr. Satish Chandra Memorial Foundation, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 99/BANG/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra BR, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT(DR)
Section 12A

paper book running from pages 15 to 147, case law compilations running from pages 150 to 177, and a petition for the admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, spanning 17 pages. The learned AR submitted that the assessee carried out activities ... have also carefully considered the petition filed by the assessee under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, seeking the admission of additional evidence consisting of 17 pages, submitted during the course of hearing. 9.1 The learned AR submitted that these documents are vital to establish that

Dr Satish Chandra Memorial Foundation, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 100/BANG/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra BR, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT(DR)
Section 12A

paper book running from pages 15 to 147, case law compilations running from pages 150 to 177, and a petition for the admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, spanning 17 pages. The learned AR submitted that the assessee carried out activities ... have also carefully considered the petition filed by the assessee under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, seeking the admission of additional evidence consisting of 17 pages, submitted during the course of hearing. 9.1 The learned AR submitted that these documents are vital to establish that

Dr. H M Venkatappa, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 2176/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri E Balasubramanian C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar E, CIT and Shri Subramanian S
Section 153CSection 2(22)(e)

resolution authorising the assessee to keep custody of all the assets including cash. 9. The AO in the remand report strongly objected the admission of additional evidence as the condition provided under rule 46A of IT Rule was not satisfied. The AO also contended as per the provision of Companies

Shri Dilip J. Thakkar, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-6(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on merits

ITA 6408/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Income Tax Officer Ward Hingoli, Ward Hingoli (Camp at Parbhani) vs. Vishwas Agro Product Pvt Ltd, Parbhani

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

ITA 1566/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Govind PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje – JCIT (Virtual)
Section 143(2)

NFAC, without giving any opportunity to the Assessing Officer to go through the same and without any application for admission of additional evidences, accepted those details and given relief which in our opinion, is not in accordance with law. Under these circumstances and considering the fact that the creditworthiness

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon vs. Hays Business Solutions Private Limited, Gurgaon

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3003/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195(1)Section 250Section 37Section 40

letter dated 21.06.2017 was received from the DCIT, Circle-2. The AO simply reiterated the finding in the assessment order and objected the admission of additional evidence. I have carefully examined the report of the AO and submission of the appellant. I find the evidences submitted by the Appellant

Vaishali Keshav Kulkarni, Pune vs. ITO Ward 13(2), Pune

In the result the Grounds Numbers 2, 3 and 4 raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 540/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.540/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vaishali Keshav Kulkarni, Flat No.3, Hermes Grandstand Society, Kavade Maal Sopan Baug, Pune Cantt East So., Pune 411001. Pan: Atjpk4884A Appellant/ Assessee V The Income Tax Officer, S Ward-13(2), Pune. Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kartik Natrajan – Ca/Ar Revenue By Shri Harish Bist – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 13.12.2024 For Assessment Year 2015-16 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Dated 05/03/2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250

Dilip Kumar alone (Page 38 & 39 of the Paperbook). Ld.AR also filed a paper book which contains additional evidence. Ld.AR requested for admission of additional evidence. Ld.AR submitted that in this case, the property was belonging to the assessee's father. The written submission of ld.AR is reproduced as under

Shweta Ajaykumar Paharia, Jaymala Apartment, Marve Road, Malad West, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 41(3)(1), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex

ITA 1181/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Mr. Ashutosh PatareFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

case where the issue consideration would require examining/verification of fact relating to the alleged bogus transactions undertaken by the Assessee and/or admission of additional evidence. It would be pertinent to point while the CIT(A) has power of enhancement under Section 251(1)(a) of the Act, the Assessee ... also move application for admission of additional evidence to substantiate claims in terms of Section 250(4) of the Act read with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1963. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate and in the interest of justice, to restore the issue back to the file

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru vs. Haris Muhammad Sait, Bengaluru

Accordingly, the appeal of the ld. AO is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2580/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, Advocate
Section 144Section 68

provisions of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, the CIT(A) is authorised to admit the additional evidence in specified circumstances. For admission of additional evidence, the appellate authority must record in writing the reasons for admission and further according to sub-Rule (3), such additional evidence cannot be taken ... produce any evidence in rebuttal to the evidence produced by the assessee. As the ld. CIT(A) has neither recorded any reason for admission of additional evidence nor mentioned what are those additional evidences that he has considered for allowing the appeal of the assessee and then deleting the addition