“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

Varun Rasiklal Thakkar, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi

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

ITA 4811/MUM/2024[AY-2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54F

documents to be necessary at that time despite due diligence exercised by the assessee. . The Ld. DR on the other hand opposed the admission of additional evidence stating they have failed to show the sufficient justification for filing the requisite information before the Ld. AO despite opportunity given ... assessee. Page | 6 7 ITA No. 4811/Mum/2024 Varun Rasiklal Thakkar 8. We have considered the rival submissions of both parties regarding admission of additional evidence. 9. Now the question before us is whether the assessee/ appellant can be permitted additional evidence in order to establish that he has purchased

Nipro Tube Glass Private Limited, Thane vs. Additional, New Delhi

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

ITA 2689/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

appeal of the assessee and adjudication of matter by the revenue authorities. 9. The Ld. DR on the other hand opposed the admission of additional evidence stating assessee has failed to show the sufficient justification for filing the requisite information before the Ld. AO despite opportunity given to the assessee ... have considered the rival submissions of the parties regarding admission of additional evidence. Now the question before us is whether the assessee/ appellant can be permitted additional evidence in order to establish the long term capital loss amounting to Rs.121,21,40,974/- arising on account of slump sale alongwith

Sher Singh, Panipat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Panipat

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

ITA 2771/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshsher Sngh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 81, Aji Julapur, Nurwala, Ward-1, Panipat Panipat 132103 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Hxgps8392D

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT (DR)

Section 10(37)Section 144Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

additional evidences filed by him need to be admitted. In response thereto, the assessee filed a detailed submission in support of admission of additional evidences. The Learned CIT(A), however, observed that Sher Sngh the reasons adduced by the assessee for admissibility of fresh evidence in appellate proceedings were neither ... Income Tax Rules. The Learned CIT(A) also noted that even the affidavit dated 14-08- 2023 filed by the assessee, praying for admission of additional evidences would not come to the rescue of the assessee. Accordingly, the Learned CIT(A) refused to admit the additional evidences furnished

Shri Kaml Kishor, Chamoli vs. ACIT, CC, Dehradun

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

ITA 77/DDN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun02 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing) Kamal Kishor, Vs. Acit, H. No. 13, Regri, Tapovan, Central Circle, Chamoli, Uttarakhand, Dehradun India-246 483 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Enspk0536E Assessee By : Shri Himanshu Sharma, Ca Revenue By: Shri S. K. Chaterjee, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Chaterjee, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 127(2)Section 131Section 132ASection 144Section 153ASection 69A

were considered by the learned CIT(A) to be additional evidences and since no Rule 46A petition was filed by the assessee for admission of additional evidence, the learned CIT(A) simply rejected the said explanation and the supporting documents given by the assessee. Consequentially, the learned CIT(A) upheld

Autopace Network Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Chandigarh

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

ITA 940/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Garima Bector, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

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

also noticed that the assessee has filed an application under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 seeking admission of additional evidence in the form of written submissions with annexures, which were not produced before the lower authorities. It was submitted that this additional evidence is necessary ... proper adjudication of the grounds and in the interest of justice. 5. The learned DR opposed the admission of additional evidence. 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and are of the view that in the interest of justice, the additional evidence sought to be filed deserves

Rajaram Tatoba Tambave, Kolhapur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Kolhapur

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

ITA 1837/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1837/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Rajaram Tatoba Vs Dcit, Circle-1, Tambave, Kolhapur Jayhind Park, Opp Shivaji School, Kasaba Bavada Karveer, Kolhapur-416006 Maharashtra Pan-Adspt1310K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri A.D. Kulkarni

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

above grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing. 3 3. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for admission of additional evidence before this Tribunal. 4. We have gone through the additional evidence and also gone through the grounds of appeal where certain issues have

Santosh Devidas Kalghatgi, Belgaum vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Belgaum

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

ITA 21/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos. 21/Pan/2024 & S A.5/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18 ) Santosh Devdas Kalghatagi, Vs I.T.O Ward-1, 287/6,1 St Floor,Saibuilding, Civil Hospital Road, . Iii Cross, Shashtri Nagar, Belgaum-590001. Shahapur, Karnataka. Belgaum-590003, . Karnataka. Pan .No. Admpk2551R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Pramod Vaidhya.Ar Revenue By Shri.Vimalrajperiyagounden..Sr.Dr

Section 44A

Ld.AR emphasized that the assessee has submitted the details as called for by the authorities. The assessee is filling the application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of ITAT rules with the separate statements showing RD and URD purchases during F.Y.2016-17, date wise purchase statement and sample copies

Rakesh Khivasara, Beawar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 86/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR

Section 115Section 127Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 234A

Against order of Commissioner (Appeals), assessee filed appeal before Tribunal It also moved application under rule 29 of Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963 for admission of additional evidences - Whether since assessee had not made out any case that authorities below had decided case without giving sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence, requirement

Servants of the People Society, New Delhi vs. DCIT (Exemption) Circle 2(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed for

ITA 3181/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 3181/Del/2024 (A.Y 2015-16) Praveen Kumar Bansal Vs Income Tax Officer Haryana School Street, Bichla Income Tax Department Bazar, Bhiwani, Haryana, Bhiwani, Haryana 127021 Pan: Abqpb7886C Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Mahesh Kasera, Adv Revenue By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2025

Section 144BSection 147

short) by making certain additions. The Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), wherein the Assessee also filed an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The said application for admission of additional evidence came to be dismissed and ultimately ... Counsel for the Assessee submitted that during the assessmentproceedings the Assessee could not produce those documents, therefore, the Assessee filed an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) committed error in rejecting

Mukeshkumar Amrutlal Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 805/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 90

confirming in levying interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C. 5. On the facts and merits of the case, the appellant craves for admission of additional evidences in the interest of natural justice and equity.” Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. The Ld.AR submitted that the only issue

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Orra Fine Jewellery Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5161/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. P.P. Bhandari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

Assessing Officer did not consider the submissions made by the assessee filed on 31.12.2019, it requested at the first appellate stage for admission of additional evidence u/r. 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). 3.1. Ld. CIT(A) called for remand report from ... details of advances were filed before the AO on 31st December 2019 1.e. after the assessment order was passed. A request for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 was made. The additional evidence were forwarded to the Assessing Officer for his comments

N J Thomas and Co, Kottayam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kottayam

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

ITA 926/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.C.A.Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

learned CIT(A). Further, the learned AR also placed on record an application dated 27/02/2025 filed by the assessee for seeking admission of additional evidence to substantiate the difference in receipts as per ITR and contractual receipts as per Form 26AS. 6. Having considered the submissions of both sides

Income Tax Officer Indore 5(1), Indore vs. Umang Developers, Indore

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 503/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253(5)

action of CIT(A) in admitting additional evidences filed by assessee: Para 3 / Page 3 of CIT(A)’s order: 3. Reason for admission of additional evidences: The appellant has filed additional evidences in the course of appeal proceedings. The appellant explained that due to mistake of his Counsel, certain ... objection that the additional evidences cannot be entertained. But the CIT(A) has taken in account the verdict of Rule 46A which permits admission of additional evidences in sufficient situations. Further, the CIT(A) has not only accepted assessee’s explanation as sufficient to invoke Rule 46A but also accepted

Income Tax Officer 5(1), Indore vs. Umang Developers, Indore

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 502/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253(5)

Pokharna Educational Trust, Shirur vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 44/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Ms. Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2Section 80G

Paper Book Book Index 6 School Registration 258-266 Certificates 7 Financials F.Y. 2021-22 to 267-343 2023-24 2. Justification for Admission of Additional Evidence: The appellant respectfully submits that there was a reasonable cause for the non- submission of these documents before the lower authorities. The omission ... appellant and result in a failure of justice. 3. The appellant places reliance on the following judicial pronouncements, which support the admission of additional evidence when it is essential for rendering justice: Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT [231 ITR 1 (Bom)] The Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that

Pokharna Educational Trust, Shirur vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 43/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Ms. Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2Section 80G

Manoj Mulani Ramachandra, Belgaum vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Belgaum, Belagavi, Karnataka

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

ITA 99/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji26 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.99/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18 ) Manoj Mulani Ramachandra, Vs I.T.O Ward-1, Plot.No.8, Sindhi Colony, Civil Hospital Road, . Hindalga, Belagavi-590001. Belgaum-591108, Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan .No. Abhpr8015J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri.Vimalrajperiyagounden.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 25.03.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26.03.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of The Nfac Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A) Partially Sustaining The Addition U/Sec69A Of The Act. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assesse Has Filed The Return Of Income On 02-10--2017 Disclosing A Total Income Of Rs.1,88,520/- & The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently

Section 143(1)

cash deposits u/sec69A of the Act as the transactions are not supported with the documentary evidences. The assessee has filed the application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of ITAT rules with the affidavits of the family members with the bank statements, which could not be submitted before

Ramineni Venkateswarulu, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Narasaraopet

ITA 538/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

fairness be set aside with a direction to him to re-adjudicate the appeal after addressing the assessee’s application for admission of additional evidence and affording of a reasonable opportunity of being heard to him. 7 9. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative (for short the “DR”) had relied

Dynamic Transmission Ltd., Rohtak vs. ACIT, Circle, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

ITA 328/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 40A(7)Section 68

good and sufficient reasons the additional evidence is eligible for admission and therefore in the light of the factual matrix prevalent post admission of additional evidence, the disallowance made cannot be sustained. The mere fact of increase in raw material cost with reference to increase in revenue has no correlation ... Kuma Vs CIT. 288 ITR 278 wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that application under the rule 46A must be made for admission of additional evidences with reasons showing the purpose of the addition al evidences and also reasons for not producing it earlier.” 16. At the time

Mayurply Industries Pvt Ltd., Hooghly, West Bengal vs. ACIT, Circle 3, Guwahati, Assam

In the result IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 224/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati24 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Roy, DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 253Section 253(5)

dismissed. 016. So far as the grounds on merit are concerned, the assessee has filed before us the application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of the Rules comprising various expenses debited to the Profit and Loss Account along with copies of ledger accounts, TDS returns and documents