“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

Income Tax Officer, Daman Ward, Daman vs. Umesh Bhagubhai Patel, Daman

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

ITA 911/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.902/Srt/2024 – Asst.Year 2017-18 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.911/Srt/2024 – Asst.Year 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT (DR)

Section 144Section 69A

details and evidences furnished by the assessee before him. In his remand report, though the AO objected to the admission of additional evidence, however, could no rebut the contention of the assessee that the assessee was a money transfer agent of Oxigen Services (India) Pvt Ltd. and further that

Income Tax Officer, Daman Ward, Daman vs. Umesh Bhagubhai Patel, Daman

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

ITA 902/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT (DR)

Section 144Section 69A

The Orchid Harmony Co Operative Housing Service Society Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1260/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)

A.Ys. 2020-21 & 2022-23 3 The Orchid Harmony Co.op. Housing Service Society Ltd. Vs. ITO in not considering the application for seeking admission of additional evidences pertaining to these expenditures. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and in facts in confirming the disallowance of expenditure

The Orchid Harmony Co Operative Housing Service Society Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1259/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)

Shamima Haseenathul, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-7(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3021/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

For Appellant: Mr. G. Baskar, Advocate

Section 115BSection 54ESection 54FSection 68

passed by the AO, the assessee has filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Following findings have been rendered by the CIT(A): Regarding Admission of Additional Evidence under Rule 46A:- I have carefully considered the submissions made by the assessee. It is observed that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee ... assessee has not demonstrated how the conditions prescribed under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules are satisfied so as to warrant admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage. In the absence of compliance with Rule 46A, the additional evidences filed cannot be admitted. Accordingly, the appeal is adjudicated

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-25(1), New Delhi vs. Venus Portfolios Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, revenue’s appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 3826/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

Report the Assessing officer has not pointed out any discrepancies in the documents furnished during appellate proceedings and has merely recommended against the admission of additional evidence. However, no cogent reason has been provided for the same. Since, the additional evidence has been admitted as discussed in para above

Jitendra Kumar Agarwal HUF, Agra vs. DCIT, Circle - 2(1)(1), Agra

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 454/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

month of October and November 2016. 4. That having regard to facts & circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) NFAC, upon the admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules and during pendency of their examination by the Assessing Officer, evident from the notice issued

Shri Premroop V. Sahu, Nagpur vs. A.C.I.T. Central Cir., - 1(2), Nagpur

In the result, ground no. 2 to 5 are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 131/NAG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Shri Premroop V. Sahu Acit, Central Circle – 1(2), Nagpur C/O. M.S. Gupta, Advocate, 333, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, 2Nd Floor, Darodkar Square, Central Avenue, Telengkhedi Road, Nagpur – 440001. Gandhibag, Nagpur – 440032. [Pan: Aoeps4542R] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri K.M. Gupta, Ca Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 132Section 254(1)

proper appreciation of fact and the same may be taken on record and admitted. The assessee has also filed separate application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules, 1963. The additional evidence may be admitted and matter may be restored back to the lower authorities ... Income Tax – Departmental Representative (ld. CIT–DR) for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities of the grounds of appeal. On admission of additional evidence which comprises of cash flow statement, the ld. CIT–DR for the Revenue submits that assessee has not given sufficient reason

Veeracharya Babasaheb Kuchnure Zilla Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Limited, Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1), Sangli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3243/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

limine without discussing anything on merits of the issues and on the ground that the appellant has not provided plausible explanation for admission of additional evidences. AYs 2018-19 & 2020-21 8. Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act provides that the sum received in respect of any income

Veeracharya Babasaheb Kuchnure Zilla Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1), Sangli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3242/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

Kailash Dayanand Punjabi, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Dhule

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

ITA 2464/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A ShahFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69

time before or during the course of hearing of the case. 8. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed an application for admission of additional evidences / corroborative evidences along with a prayer by mentioning as under: 5 9. He accordingly submitted that he has no objection if the matter

M/S Shivansh Infraestate Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow vs. Dy. CIT Range-6, Lucknow

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

ITA 106/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 M/S Shivansh Infraestate Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Block-A, Surajdeep Income Tax, Range-6, 3Rd Floor, Complex, 1-Jopling Road, 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001 P.K. Complex, Lucknow Pan: Aaqcs5896P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 18.01.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 30.12.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1- The Ld. Cit (A) Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Ground That Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued By Ito-6(1) Lucknow On 01.04.2016 Without Appreciating That Jurisdiction Of Case Lies With Dcit, Range-6, Lucknow, Hence The Notice Issued By Ito-6(1) Is Without Jurisdiction & Invalid. Further, No Notice U/S 143(2) Has Been Issued By Jurisdictional Dcit, Range-Vi, Lucknow Within The Period As Per Section 143(2) Of L. T. Act. Hence The Present Assessment Is Invalid, Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2- The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Upheld The Addition Without Appreciating That Ld. A. O. Rejected The Books Of Account & Instead Of Estimating The Net Profit, Additions Were Made On The Basis Of Same Books Of Account By Disallowing Expenses Under Different Heads Total Rs. 1,75,91,607/- & Addition U/S 68 R. W. S. 115Bbe Of I. T. Act For Rs. 1,32,78,833/- Which Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Law.

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

submitting copy of Ledger and Voucher. Same is enclosed at page 243 of the Paper book.” He also filed a petition for the admission of additional evidence as per Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 in which it was submitted that the copy of details

Sarfarazkhan Sarvarkhan Pathan, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2016/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri P D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69Section 69A

bank entries were duly recorded in the books of account and that the additions resulted in double taxation. The assessee also sought admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules and challenged the levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C as well as initiation ... likewise upheld by CIT(Appeals). The ground relating to double taxation was dismissed for want of any supporting explanation. The request for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A was rejected as no such evidence was actually filed. The levy of interest was upheld by relying upon the judgment

Santush Pandurang Mane, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4528/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhatFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68Section 80C

form part of the paper book from pages 108-191. In this regard, the learned AR drew attention to the application for admission of additional evidence filed by the assessee in support of the aforesaid documents, which have been placed on record. The application for admission of additional evidence filed ... assessee is reproduced as follows for ready reference: "Sub: Application for admission of Additional Evidence. In connection with the above-mentioned Appeal filed by Appellant above, in support of the appeal the Appellant is filing additional evidence forming part at Pg. No.108 to 191 of Factual Paper Book

Shantadurga Multi Purpose Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -M 2, Belagavi

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

ITA 205/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.205/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19 ) Shantadurgamultipurpose Vs I T O, Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, National E Assessment . Shop.No.13/14,Mangaldeep Centre, Apartments, Opp:Herwadkar, Delhi. Belgaum-590006, Karnataka. . Pan .No. Aahas7562F (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 80P(2)(a)

information before the revenue authorities placed at page 22 to 25 of the paper book. The assessee is now filling the application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of ITAT rules with details of copies of meeting proceedings of the executive committee sanctioning the loan and the purchase

Kowlanahalli Ningegowda Somashekar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1045/BANG/2025[2021-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2026AY 2021-13

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R

Section 250Section 253(5)

accordingly we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 7. Before us, the assessee has also filed an application for admission of additional evidences, which are reproduced below: Kowlanahalli Ningegowda Somashekar, Bengaluru Page 13 of 18 Kowlanahalli Ningegowda Somashekar, Bengaluru Page 14 of 18 Kowlanahalli Ningegowda Somashekar, Bengaluru ... other hand strongly opposed the admission of the additional evidences at this stage. 9. We have heard the rival submissions on the admission of additional evidences. According to Rule 29 of the I.T. Rules, 1963, generally the parties to the appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidences either

Deepak Kumar Prop. M/S Urvi Enterprises Mandigobindgarh, Mandi Gobindgarh vs. The Assessment Unit NFAC Delhi Jao the Income Tax Officer Ward-2 Mandi Gobindgarh, Mandi Gobindgarh

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

ITA 103/CHANDI/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2022-2023

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Garg, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 250

prosecution. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Before us, the assessee filed an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, contending that both the assessment proceedings as well as the first appellate ... participation in the appellate proceedings and the consequent dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution. In support of the application for admission of additional evidence, the assessee submitted that the evidence now sought to be filed is vital and goes to the root of the matter. 11. The additional evidence

Jinesh Lalit Jain, Raigad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Panvel, Raigad

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

ITA 2127/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2127/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Jinesh Lalit Jain, Vs. Ito, Ward-5, Panvel. 110, Mcch Society Ltd., Panvel Raigarh, Panvel- 410206. Pan : Acwpj0187B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Manthan Ruparelia Revenue By Shri Basavaraj Hiremath : Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.07.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Hon'Ble Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Not Considering The Assessment Order Is Bad In Law As Reopening U/S 147 Was Based Merely On Third-Party Information Without Independent Verification Or Recorded Reasons Furnished To The Appellant. 2. The Hon'Ble Cit(A), Nfac Erred By Not Providing Proper Opportunity Breached The Principles Of Natural Justice. 3. The Hon'Ble Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 53,12,313/- Ignoring The Appellant'S Reconciliations, Contra

For Appellant: Shri Manthan Ruparelia

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69

both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book and additional evidence paper book along with application for admission of additional evidences furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that the assessment order was passed ex-parte and when the matter reached before

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -1(1), Raipur vs. Bharat Agro Industries, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed as above

ITA 511/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am

For Appellant: Shri Jalaj Prakash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 40A(3)

additional evidence, a separate letter is being submitted. This is an additional evidence and separate letter is being filed making a prayer for admission of additional evidence u'r 46A. As regards miscellaneous purchases of Rs. 1,47,04,929, it is submitted that such purchases were made from

Shree Nana Jadra Seva Sahkari Mandli Limited, Bhavnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1(9), Bhavnagar

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2570/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2570/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shree Nana Jadra Seva Sahkari The Ito बनाम/ Mandli Ltd. Ward-1(9) V/S. At Nana Jadra Village Bhavnagar – 364 001 Mahuva Bhavnagar – 364 290 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaxas 2474 E (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nemish Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rajenkumar M. Vasavda, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 28/10/2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Shree Nana Jadra Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Nemish Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M. Vasavda, Sr.DR

Section 69A

aside and a reasonable opportunity to be heard on the merits of the case be given. GROUND III: Non-admission of additional evidence 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not admitting the additional evidence furnished