← 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

Sapthagiri Bankers, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Salem

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

ITA 3231/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.S. Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 142(1)

therefore, according to the Ld.AR, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming both the disallowances. Before us, the Ld.AR has filed an application for admission of additional evidences in support of both claims and prayed that it may be admitted. 6. Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to admit ... access it and therefore, he confirmed both the disallowances. Be that as it may, before us, the assessee has filed an application for admission of additional evidences in support of both the claims, but since both authorities below couldn’t examine it, for the interest of justice and fair play

International Air Transport Association, Mumbai (for Sending Notices) vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) - Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3330/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3330/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) International Air V/S. Dcit (It), Circle 2(2)(1), Transport Association बिधम Mumbai C/O Ernst & Young Llp Room No. 1722, 17Th Floor, 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Air India Building, Senapati Bapat Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Dadar (West), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400021 Maharashtra-400028 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacci4695N Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka and Shri DiveshFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

subsequent year) while computing the tax liability for the AY 2020-21. In this regard, IATA Canada had filed an application for admission of additional evidence before the Hon'ble DRP on 8 April 2023 wherein IATA Canada had submitted list of credit notes issued to its customer in subsequent

ACIT, Circle-18(2), New Delhi vs. Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3559/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 37Section 41Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

reply received from Hallow Securities was duly forwarded to the Assessing Officer for comments. Hence, it cannot be treated as admission of additional evidence, since the same was independently called for by the Ld. CIT(A), and adequate opportunity was provided to the Assessing Officer.(Refer Page

DCIT, International Taxation, Jaipur vs. Kavita Chhugani, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 127/JPR/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Ashish Khandelwal, C.A., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 69A

also sustained and relevant ground on this issue raised by the department is dismissed. 7. Ground nos. 1.4 and 1.5 relating to admission of additional evidence under rule 46A of the Rules without giving an opportunity to the AO is found to be an academic one, i.e. not a substantial

Nirmala Trivedi, Kanpur vs. AO Circle-1(1)(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 347/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

Bajan Allianz – Account statement 6. State Bank of India confirmation of no rent paid Further an application was also filed separately for admission of additional evidence (certificate dated 20/05/2024 issued by State Bank of India, which was also filed with the aforesaid paper book referred to earlier). The relevant portion ... application for admission of additional evidence is reproduced as under: 1. Please find attached a certificate dated 10.5.2024 from State Bank of India. This is also forming part of the Paper book submitted at Page No. 7. 2. The said certificate is an evidence and confirmation to prove that

Alok Joshi, Uttrakhand vs. Income Tax Officer (It)-3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1247/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 10(34)Section 10(4)Section 10(4)(ii)Section 254(1)

parties have been heard and record perused. The Learned Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) of the assessee submits that assessee has filed application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963). The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee ... that lower authorities have denied relief to the assessee for the want of evidence. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that after admissions of additional evidence, the assessee may be allowed a relief. 4. On the other hand, the Learned Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) for the revenue submits

Mr. Anil Bherumal Kalal, Mumbai vs. ITO -19(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, substantial ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 1189/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Mr. Anil Bherumal Kalal Ito – 19(2)(1), Mumbai A-602, Pooja Enclave, S T Braz Road, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Behind Nanavati Hospital, Vile Parle Bandra (East), Mumbai – West, Mumbai-400056. 400051. Pan: Aabpk 3216 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Subhash Chhajed, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Pradnya Gholap, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.04.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Dated 30.12.2024 For A.Y. 2006-07. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Validity Of The Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act & The Assessment Thereunder: 1.A) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit (A)] Erred In Upholding The Assessment For The Assessment Year 2006-07 Framed By The Learned Assessing Officer Without Complying With The Relevant Provisions Of The Law. B) It Is Respectfully Submitted That No Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act Was Served On The Appellant Within The Time Limits Prescribed Under Section 143(2) Of The Act. Accordingly, The Learned Assessing Officer Had No Jurisdiction To Proceed With Scrutiny Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Act. Thus, The Assessment Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Quashed & Struck Down As Null & Void. In View Of The Above, The Appellant Prays That The Assessment Be Set Aside As Bad In Law & Struck Down As Null & Void.

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Pradnya Gholap, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 254(1)Section 54FSection 69

furnished of necessary evidence to prove the source of investment. The assessee also filed application Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules for admission of additional evidence to substantiate the source of investment. On the submission and 4 Mr. Anil Bherumal Kalal A.Y. 2006-07 evidence furnished by assessee

Ashok Gupta HUF, Alwar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is disposed off for

ITA 52/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 56(2)(ix)

made the addition of Rs.20,01,000/- 4. Before Ld. CIT(A) assessee filed application dt. 13.06.2024 under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidences regarding cancellation of sale agreement with Sh. Sunil Gupta (PB 27-33), affidavit of Sunil Gupta regarding return of Rs.20 ... called a remand report on the additional evidence filed before him. The AO in the remand report objected to the admission of additional evidence for the reason that he has not refused to admit the evidences and assessee was not prevented by any sufficient cause for producing these evidences during

Smt. Bindiya Sanjaykumar Shah, Vadodara vs. The Dy. CIT, Central Circle-3, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in IT(SS)A No

ITA 566/AHD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

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

Section 132Section 153A

CASE OF BINDIYA SANJAY KUMAR SHAH ITA N0. 43 8566/AHD/2022 (AY 2009-10 & 2015-16) MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR, SUB: Request for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963; reg With reference to above subject matter, the undersigned appellant would like to seek your ... case of M/s Luminous Teleinfra Ltd. Vs The Addl CIT, Special Range-5 in ITA No. 6997/DEL/2017 dt 31.05.2024 has allowed the admission of additional evidences holding that the additional evidence now being furnished, has a direct and important bearing to adjudicate the present controversy and hence admitted keeping

Sangeeta Agrawal L.H of Late Sh. Rakesh Kumar Agrawal, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-60(1), New Delhi, Delhi

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4668/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalsangeeta Agrawal L. H Of Vs. Acit Late Sh. Rakeshkuamr Circle-60(1) Agrawal, New Delhi Sangeeta Agrawal L/H Of Late Sh. Rakesh Kumar Agrawal, New Delhi Pan: Afipa6968A Appellant Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

vide order dated 27/09/2024, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the Application filed for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 27/09/2024, the Assessee preferred ... well as the Assessee on the application for additional evidence, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the application of the Assessee for admission of additional evidence. 7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, since the documents produced as additional evidence are claim to have the significance in determining

Wani Iron Steel, Srinagar vs. Ward 1 Srinagar, Srinagar

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

ITA 462/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No.462/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

depicting sales made to the assessee by the three parties, along with an application under Rule – 29 of ITAT Rules ’63, praying for admission of additional evidence. 6. The Ld. DR has no objection if the matter is sent back to the AO for verification of the additional evidences, which

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Srinagar, Srinagar vs. Wani Iron Steel, Nowgam by Pass

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

ITA 442/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No.462/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

depicting sales made to the assessee by the three parties, along with an application under Rule – 29 of ITAT Rules ’63, praying for admission of additional evidence. 6. The Ld. DR has no objection if the matter is sent back to the AO for verification of the additional evidences, which

Jagdishsinh Bhagwansinh Mahida, Na vs. Arivs.the ACIT, Anand Circle, Anand

ITA 1970/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Chitrang Vaywala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr DR
Section 144Section 250Section 50C

erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee only on the ground that no petition has been filed by the assessee for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the IT Rules. Jagdishsinh Bhagwansinh Mahida Vs.ACIT Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 2– 2. On the facts and circumstances

Anil Dinkar Patil, Bhusawal vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1) Jalgaon, Jalgaon

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

ITA 474/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.474/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Dinkar Patil, V The Income Tax Officer, Anil Book Depot, Near New S Ward-2(1), Jalgaon. Satara Bridge, Bhusawal, Maharashtra – 425201. Pan: Aqhpp5953C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri R.Shirude -Ar & Shri Anil Patil(Assessee) Revenue By Shri Prashant B. Gandhale –Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/04/2025 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 12.12.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1) In The Facts, Circumstances & Position Of Law, Learned Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Confirming The Order Of Assessing Officer & Passing Ex-Parte Order.

Section 115BSection 144Section 250Section 69A

paper book at page no.72. Ld.AR submitted a paper book and he admitted that it is additional evidence. Ld.AR pleaded for admission of additional evidence. Ld.AR further submitted that the paper book contains copies of cash book, cash flow statement, copies of bills to demonstrate the business carried by assessee

Deepali Manish Shrivastava, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 2547/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Umesh Kumar M. MaliFor Respondent: Ms. Shilpa N. C
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

appellate order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, we find that the assessee has stated to have furnished an application for admission of additional evidences 8 which was claimed to be filed on 23.08.2024. In this regard, we find that the application for admission of additional evidences under Rule

Sattyasheel Nandlal Naik(HUF), Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Pune

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

ITA 761/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.761/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sattyasheel Nandlal Naik Vs. Dcit, Circle-6, Pune. (Huf), 878, Shukrawar Peth, Pune- 411002. Pan : Aaahn5509B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. N. Puranikh Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai : Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Cit(Appeals) Has Erred On Facts & Law In Confirming The Addition To Income Of Rs.54,99,635/- On Account Of Income From House Property U/S 23(4) Of I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Puranikh
Section 143(2)Section 23(4)

this Tribunal. 5. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the assessee has filed two applications for admission of additional evidences. First application was filed on 27.08.2024 wherein copy of sale deed of Flat No.B-16 has been furnished wherein it has been mentioned that ... condition therefore, the Assessing Officer should not have had calculated any deemed rent u/s 23(4) of the Act. 5.1 Another application for admission of additional evidence was furnished on 15.01.2025 wherein the assessee has furnished copy of possession certificate with respect to Flat No.D-2601 and D- 2602. According

Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Mahasang Haryana, Faridabad vs. CIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh/Faridabad

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3196/DEL/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 3195/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ita No. 3196/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Geodis Overseas Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Building No.5,Tower B, Income Tax, 10Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Company Circle- Ii(1), Phase Iii, Gurgaon Chennai-34 Pin: 122 002 Pan No. Aaacc6168L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 92C

additional evidence filed by the Appellant in respect of disallowance of interest on working capital was not accompanied with an application for admission of additional evidence as per Rule 46A of the Rules. 13. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred ... summarily rejecting the additional evidence submitted by the Appellant for substantiating the 50:50 revenue sharing model. The Appellant had filed application for admission of additional evidence with the predecessor of CIT(A) which was forwarded the under Rule 46A to the jurisdictional Officer vide letter dated June

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Me N Moms Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4900/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 133Section 143(3)Section 145Section 68

called for remand report from the ld. Assessing Officer which is placed on record. In the remand report, ld. Assessing Officer accepted the admission of additional evidences furnished by the assessee. He also verified the source of funds received by the investing companies and cross verified the same by issuing

Nilkanth Raojibhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Intl. Taxn., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1995/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1995/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बनाम/ Nilkanth Raojibhai Patel Income Tax Officer Karmyog 1 Solarhome, Ward (2), International Vs. Opp. Ashweriya Flats, Taxation, Ahmedabad Vegetable Market Road, Ellora Park, Odhavpura, Vadodara, Gujarat - 390007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bappp3651Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. Dr 02/04/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 04/04/2025 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad-13, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 11.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. As Per Registry, There Was A Delay Of 39 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reason For The Delay Which, According To Him, Was Of 466 Days. It Has Been Submitted That The Assessee Is A Super Senior Citizen Aged 80 Years, Residing In Usa & That He Only Occasionally Visited His Native Place In India. The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Was Sent To His Email Account But He Was Not Regular In Accessing His Email

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 68

assessee and, therefore, the AO was not correct in treating the same as unexplained investment. The assessee has also filed an application for admission of additional evidence in support of the investment made in Mutual Funds. The Ld. AR, therefore, requested that the matter may be set aside

Synergy Auto Inc, Andheri East vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 4600/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R

attend the proceedings and submit all the details. However, the ld. Counsel furnished the complete details before us with an application for admission of additional evidence. 6.1. Considering the facts of the case, the additional evidences are admitted. 7. Considering the nature of evidences, we deem it fit to restore