“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

Abdul Aziz, Dudu vs. ITO Ward 7(3), Lal Kothi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1025/JPR/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2025AY 2012-2013

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50C

exempt. The Appellant has submitted evidences insupport of the same with as request to admit as additional evidences u/R46A.I have already adjudicated on admissibility of additional evidence vide para5.1.3 above. I have held that the Appellant was not prevented from submitting detailsbefore the AO. I have also held that ... ought to have furnished speaking reasons for non-admission so that the assessee could explain properly as to whether the reasons for non- admission of additional evidence are in accordance with law or not. In the instant case, the ld. CIT (A) completely ignored to take notice of the additional

Anthayya Education Foundation Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 5004/MUM/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 12ASection 142(1)

Income-Tax Rule,1962 [in short ‘the rule'] and call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer including objection for admission of additional evidence. However, said procedure was not followed by Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) himself examined the additional evidences and observed that the assessee

Anthayya Education Foundation Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption 1-(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 5001/MUM/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Margav Shukla &For Respondent: Mr. Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. DR

Section 12ASection 142(1)

Income-Tax Rule,1962 [in short ‘the rule’] and call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer including objection for admission of additional evidence. However, said procedure was not followed by Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) himself examined the additional evidences and observed that the assessee

Ragunath Hari Amrutkar Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit, Gunjalnagar, Deola vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 675/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.675/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Piyush P. BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B Budruk

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

limine without discussing anything on merits of the issues and on the ground that the assessee has not provided plausible explanation for admission of additional evidences. 3 Raghunath Hari Amrutkar Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Pasthsanstha Maryadit, 8. Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act provides that the sum received in respect

ITO 1(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Mangalam Drugs & Organics Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5279/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Tulsian, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan- Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 250

revenue is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A). 8. The ld. DR made a petition for admission of additional evidence containing the following documents M/s Mangalam Drugs & Organics Ltd. “1. Report of the Addl. CIT, Range-1(2), Mumbai dated 16.03.2020 Enclosing a detailed report ... submitted and the response to notice under section 133(6). The AO also argued that the M/s Mangalam Drugs & Organics Ltd. conditions for admission of additional evidence is not fulfilled in this case and therefore the additional evinces cannot be admitted. 10. We heard the parties and perused the materials

Sohan Lal Singla, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the grounds

ITA 711/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Delhi08 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraasian Honda Motor Co. Vs. Dcit, Ddit/Adit Ltd., No.14, Sarasin (International Tax) Building, Surasak Road, Room No. 602, 6Th Floor, Khwaeng, Silom Khet Aayakar Bhawan, A-2D, Bangrak, Bangkok Sector 24, Gautam Budh Metropolis, Nagar, Noida, Thailand, 10500 Uttar Pradesh – 201307 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaica2531P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Kamal Sawhney, Adv &For Respondent: Sh. Vijay B Vasanta, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

relevant documents P a g e | 7 Asian Honda Motor Co. Ltd. (AY: 2022-23) before the Learned DRP neither such application for admission of additional evidences is forthcoming from the appellant before us. 4. Having regard to this particular aspect of the matter, we are of the considered opinion

Thakkar Mukeshbhai Keshavlal, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Office, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1498/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Thakkar Mukeshbhai Keshavlal Huf Ito, Ward-3(3)(5) 456, 45Th Floor, Titanium City Centre Vs. Vejalpur, Ahmedabad. Nr.Sachin Tower Satellite Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Aaaht 1750 N (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Rupesh R. Shah, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Smt.Trupti Patel, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/05/2025

For Respondent: Smt.Trupti Patel, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

delay of 252 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The Departmental Representative (DR) raised no objection in condoning the delay. Application for Admission of Additional Evidence 11. During the course of hearing before us, the assessee moved an application under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules ... seeking admission of additional evidence in the form of various documents which, according to the assessee, could not be submitted either during the assessment proceedings or before the Ld. CIT(A). The application is supported by a detailed affidavit sworn by Shri Mukeshbhai Keshavlal Thakkar, Karta of the assessee

Annapurna Nagari Sahkari Pathsantha Maryadit, Yawal vs. ITO, Ward1(4), Jalgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 313/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.313/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava

Section 147Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

limine without discussing anything on merits of the issues and on the ground that the assessee has not provided plausible explanation for admission of additional evidences. 8. Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act provides that the sum received in respect of any income by way of interest or dividend

Shesharam Kumawat, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-8(2), Hyderabad

ITA 191/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: us :

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav. Sr.D.R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

AO/explained to the AO. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC failed to appreciate that the Appellant in para 4 of the Petition filed for admission of additional evidence explained the reasons for not being able to furnish the evidences before the AO. 3. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred ... Before proceeding any further, we deem it fit to cull out Rule 46A which contemplates the admission of additional evidence before the CIT(A), as under : 46A. (1) The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the Joint Commissioner] (Appeals)] [or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals

Pradeep Garg, Ajmer vs. ITO 2(1) Ajmer, Ajmer

ITA 397/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(3)Section 64(1)(iv)

appellant during the course of appellate proceedings are not admitted under Rule 46A, as the appellant has not filed any application for admission of additional evidence under rule circumstances given in Clause (a) to (d) of sub-rule 1 of Rule 46A. Therefore, the disallowance of Rs.3,75,917/- made ... appellant during the course of appellate proceedings are not admitted under Rule 46A, as the appellant has not filed any application for admission of additional evidence under rule circumstances given in Clause (a) to (d) of sub-rule 1 of Rule 46A. Therefore, the disallowance of Rs.3,75,917/- made

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

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

ITA 1344/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2015-2016

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 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 ... AJMER 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 CIT (A) rejected

Avinash S Sadamate ACIT Circle 3 3 1, Mumbai vs. Vijay Security Systems Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1208/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Acit Circle-(3)(3)(1) Vijay Security Systems Private Room No. 552, Aayakar Limited, 35 Chandivali Village Off Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East), Churchgate, Mumbai-400072. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaacv1363L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri. Sandeep Chaturvedi Ca Revenue By Ms. Pradnya Gholap, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/05/2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Revenue / Assessing Officer Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ld. Cit(A)) Dated 24.01.2025 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “ (1) "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Justified In Treating The Assessment Completed Ex-Parte U/S.144 Of The Act Disregarding The Fact That Desired Details Called For Were Not Submitted Before The Ao I.E. Ito-11(3)(3) Having Jurisdiction Over The Case?" (Ii) "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Justified In Not Deciding The Appeal On Merit Of The Additions Made By Ao & In Fact, Not Considering The Fact That The Information Of Obtaining Accommodation Bills Towards Alleged Bogus Purchases Was Received From The Sales Department?" (Iii) "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Rightly Dismissed The Appeal Without Considering The Fact That The Genuineness Of The Details Submitted By The Assessee During Remand Proceedings By The Assessee Officer Could Not Be Ascertained In The Absence Of Parties Involved & The Same Was Not Questioned As Well By The Ld.Cit(A)?" Acit Vs Vijay Security Services (Iv) "The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend And/Or Vary Grounds Of Appeal Before Or During The Course Of Hearing.”

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69C

assessee filed detailed written submissions and various evidences to substantiate the purchases from both the parties. The assessee also filed application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules. The ld CIT(A) remanded all the evidence to the AO for his remand report

Shri. Thettayil Devassy Vargheese, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Range-2, Thrissur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 473/COCH/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2014-15 Thettayil Devassy Vargheese .......... Appellant Thettayil House, Mulangunnathukavu Thrissur 680 581 [Pan: Adepv4594P] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(3), Thrissur .......... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tomson T. Emmanuel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. During the course of hearing the appellant filed an application for admission of additional evidence in the form of invoices and lorry receipts in order to demonstrate the sales were actually made to Thettayil Traders. I am satisfied with

D S Kulkarni and Company, Pune vs. DCIT Circle 2, Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2421/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2417 To 2421/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 D. S. Kulkarni & Vs. Dcit, Cricle-2, Pune Company, Flat No.701, Modi Baug, Dsk Haryali, Shivajinagar, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aaefd2122L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 24.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Five Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2418/Pun/2024 For Assessment Year 2016-17 As A Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 147Section 148

justified and accordingly, the learned CIT(A) ought to have deleted the said addition. 6] The assessee requests for admission of additional evidences in support of its case. 7] The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 5. Facts

D S Kulkarni and Company, Pune vs. DCIT Circle 2, Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2420/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 147Section 148

D S Kulkarni and Company, Pune vs. DCIT Circle 2, Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2419/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 147Section 148

D S Kulkarni and Company, Pune vs. DCIT Circle 2, Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2418/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 147Section 148

D S Kulkarni and Company, Pune vs. DCIT Circle 2, Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2417/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 147Section 148

Rajendra, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 759/MUM/2025[AACPR4430M]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara(Physical Hearing) बनाम Rajendra, Dcit Circle 19(3), Mumbai 317, Prasad Chamber, Opera House, Vs Piramal Chambers, Charni Road, Mumbai – 400004. Lalbaug, Parel, Pan No. Aacpr 4430 M Mumbai-400012. अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी /Respondent ननर्ाारितीकीओिसे /Assessee By Ms. Ruby Srivastava & Shri Bharat Kumar Ar’S िाजस्वकीओिसे /Revenue By Shri Anil Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Institution Of Appeal 03.02.2025 27.02.2025 सुनवाईकीतािीख/Date Of Hearing उद्घोषणाकीतािीख/Date Of 30.04.2025 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

assessment order, which was mentioned by way of separate letter, which in violation of CBDT direction. The assessee also filed application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules. Such documents/ evidencesconsist of ledger account with Satco Capital Limited

Bhagwan Bhairu Badre, Mumbai vs. Ward 42(1)(1), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan

ITA 1692/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: the City Civil Court, which passed its order on 27.12.2011 2.

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin SolankiFor Respondent: Shri Akhatar Hussain Ansari

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50C

Appellant provided through the letter dated 27.12.2018, the letter dated 08.01.2019, and the subsequent submission dated 28.02.2019, which included a prayer for the admission of additional evidence. 1.3. The Ld. CIT(A) was also not justified in dismissing the appeal without calling for a remand report from the Ld. Assessing ... Officer regarding the prayer for the admission of additional evidence. Furthermore, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the evidence submitted by the Assessee in his submission dated 08.01.2019, which was duly filed at the office of the then Ld. CIT(A) on 11.01.2019. 1.4. The Appellant respectfully submits that