← 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

Medinnova Systems Private Limited, Surat vs. DCIT Circle 2(1)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1241/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1241/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Medinnova Systems Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ (Previously Known Soma Tech. Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Surat, Vs. Pvt. Ltd.) 301, Soham House, Current Jurisdiction Ward- Opp. St Xaviers School, Ghod 2(1)(1), Vadodara, Aaykar Dod Road, Surat-395 007 Bhavan, Race Course, Circle, Vadodara-390 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aakcs 5265 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 15/01/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/03/2025

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

does not wish to press Ground No.1; therefore, Ground No.1 is dismissed as “not pressed”. 3. The appellant has made an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule-29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963. It is submitted that the appeal relates to disallowance of import from an overseas supplier

Annapurna Nagari Sahkari Pathsanstha Maryadit Yawal, Yawal vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Jalgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2471/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2471/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

control of the assessee. The ld.CIT(A) erred in arriving at conclusion that the assessee has failed to adduce any plausible explanation for admission of additional evidences, which it did not file. Further, the assessee in the instant case has earned interest income of Rs.1,63,98,998/- from ... 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

Ashok Bala, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 59(7), New Delhi

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

ITA 791/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18 Ashok Bala, Vs. Ito, Ward 59(7), A-78, 3Rd Floor, Yojna Vihar, Delhi East Delhi, Delhi Pin 1100 92 Pan No. Ahrpb3671N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R.P. Mall, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

time of hearing, Learned Authorised Representative for the appellant/assessee filed application under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Rules) 1963 for admission of additional evidence and in separate application for permission to raise an additional ground of appeal as under: “That learned NFAC has erred in failing

Dy. C.I.T. Central Cir.-2(2), Nagpur vs. M/S Shree Agrawal Finance India P. Ltd., Nagpur

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 175/NAG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’‘Bleand

Section 143(3)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’‘BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Ashabe Suffah Charitable Trust, Jaipur vs. CIT(Exemption)-Jaipur, Jaipur

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

ITA 1130/JPR/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Mar 2025AY 2024-25
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Kabra, C.A. (Thr. V.C.)For Respondent: ShriP.P. Meena, CIT
Section 12ASection 23

preferred an appeal before us. To support the grounds so raised the ld. AR of the assessee has service of a prayer for admission of additional evidence which reads as under:- "The Registration application of the Appellant Trust was rejected for certain recitals in the Trust deed. The appellant Trust

Syed Kiwan Khaja Mohiuddin, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-12(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 80/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.80/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Syed Kiwan Khaja Vs. Income Tax Officer Mohiuddin Ward-12(3) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bqops0246K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Jagannath राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ashish Kumar Shukla, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/03/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA JagannathFor Respondent: : Shri Ashish Kumar Shukla, DR
Section 68

registration charges for purchase of house property. The learned AR has submitted that the assessee has now filed an application for admission of additional evidence in support of the source of deposit in the bank account as well as the expenditure on account of registration charges of the house property ... confirmed by the learned CIT (A) when the assessee could not furnish supporting evidence. Now the assessee has filed an application for admission of additional evidence and also sought to produce the following additional evidence: a) Gift deed & fathers pan card along with service book b) Fathers bank statement with

Knauf India Pvt Ltd (Earlier Know As Usg Boral Building Products (India) Pvt Ltd), Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-14(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

ITA 2061/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jhadav, CIT DR
Section 144Section 37Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

Aggrieved with the above order, assessee is in appeal before us raising ground of appeal and before us, assessee has filed application for admission of additional evidences. After considering the submissions of the assessee, we are inclined to remit this issue to the file of Assessing Officer to verify

Knauf India Pvt Ltd (Earlier Know As Usg Boral Building Products (India) Pvt Ltd), Haryana vs. ITO, Ward 14 (3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

ITA 2060/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jhadav, CIT DR
Section 144Section 37Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

Aggrieved with the above order, assessee is in appeal before us raising ground of appeal and before us, assessee has filed application for admission of additional evidences. After considering the submissions of the assessee, we are inclined to remit this issue to the file of Assessing Officer to verify

Anand Kushwaha, Bahraich vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Bahraich

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

ITA 35/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2018-19 Anand Kushwaha V. The Ito-1 Sorrokala Bahraich Motipur Bahraich Tan/Pan:Canpk9122Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 03 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasia, CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194HSection 282Section 69A

both the lower authorities could not be served on the assessee due to incorrect email address. The Ld. A.R. submitted an application for admission of additional evidence and invited our attention to the paper book consisting of bank statements, copy of Certificate issued by Yes Bank appointing the assessee

Uday Ramesh Nayak, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle - Int. Taxation, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 415/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Sanjay K. Lal, CIT DR
Section 234ASection 234BSection 234FSection 271ASection 69

addition to Rs. 13,72,952/- with the following observations: “6.3.4 With regard to the ld. AO's primary objection to the admission of additional evidence, the Panel concludes that there were sufficient causes which led to the non submission of complete and specific details before the AO. The assessee

The Bank of Tokyo- Mitsubishi Limited, Kolkalta vs. ACIT, Spl. Range-3, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 449/KOL/2001[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2025AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.449/Kol/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Years :2018-2019) Ito, Ward-32(1), Kolkata Vs Satish Singh, 5B/H/6, Shibtala Lane, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Dswps 6446 B (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) रधजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Sandip Sarkar, Jcit, Sr.Dr निर्धाररतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 01.01.2025For The Assessment Year2018-2019. 2. The Issue Raised In The Appeal Of Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) In Admitting The Additional Evidence Without Allowing Reasonable Opportunity To The Assessing Officer As Per Provisions Of Rule 46A Of It Rules, 1962 & Second Issue Is Against The Deletion Of Addition Of Rs.2,75,17,500/- As Made By The Ao U/S.40A(3) Of The Act In Respect Of Commission & Salary Paid By The Assessee During The Year. 3. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 16,36,550/-On 11/06/2019, The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 25.10.2019. Subsequently, Return Of The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Sarkar, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 40A(3)

very reasoned order and does not require any interference and we uphold the same. 8. Moreover, on the issue of admission of additional evidence, ld.CIT(A) has recorded a categorical finding that all the evidence were before the AO and the AO misappreciated the facts, therefore, the provision of Rule

The Cochin Malabar Estates and Industries Ltd, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Circle-1 (1), Kochi

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 204/COCH/2021[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Mar 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2009-2010 The Cochin Malabar Estates & Industries Ltd. .......... Appellant "Cowcoody Chambers", 234-A, Race Course Road, Coimbatore 641018 [Pan: Aabct0025C] Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle - 4(2), Kochi Appellant By: Shri C.P. Sharma, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri C.P. Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143

aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. During the course of hearing the appellant made application for admission of additional evidences in the form of following documents: - 3 The Cochin Malabar Estates and Industries Ltd. i)of the Resolution passed by the Board Directors ... Cochin Malabar Estates and Industries Ltd. 8. Having heard the rival submissions we are satisfied with the reasons stated in the application for admission of additional evidences and, therefore, admit the same and remand the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with

Ajit Jinnappa Gatare, Sangli vs. ITO Ward 1 Sangli, Sangli

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

ITA 13/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Pune13 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.13/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018 Ajit Jinnappa Gatare, Ito, Ward – 1, Arihant Krushi Seva, At & Post V/S Sangli Arag, Taluka Miraj Dist- Sangli - 416401 Maharashtra Pan-Amfpg4709H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Amol KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 144

learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal without giving any opportunity for submission of the reasons justifying admission of additional evidence or stating the intent of dismissal of appeal in any of the Notices of Hearing issued to the 2 appellant. 4. The learned

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena, Jaipur

ITA 288/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev sogani, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

additional ground for adjudication. It is noted that assessee during the course of hearing before NFAC had filed an application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Following additional evidences were submitted before NFAC: 1. Prayer under Rule 46A 2. Supplementary Deed evidencing ... three) evidences were part of the government record. The ground has no merit as the Rule 46A is very clear on the admission of additional evidences m) Case law CIT vs Poddar SudeshLidyog (P) Ltd (2007) 295 ITR 252 (Gauhati) cited by the assesse is distinguishable on facts

DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Ahmedabad vs. Hiralal Dayaram Thakkar, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 159/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 157, 158 & 159/Ahd/2024 & Cross Objection Nos. 39, 40 & 41/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) बनाम/ Dcit Hiralal Dayaram Thakkar Central Circle-2(4), 1, Nilkanth Complex, Nr. Vs. Ahmedabad Tv-9, Jivraj Park, Gujarat – 380051 Hiralal Dayaram Thakkar & Dcit 1, Nilkanth Complex, Nr. Central Circle-2(4), Tv-9, Jivraj Park, Gujarat Ahmedabad - 380051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanpt3721E (Appellant / Cross Objector) .. (Respondent) Shri Vivek Chavda & Shri Nishit Assessee By : Jesur, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. Dr 06/03/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 12/03/2025

For Appellant: Jesur, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 68

deleting the addition of Rs.3,45,46,640/-, which was based on incorrect appreciation of facts of the case. With respect to admission of additional evidences by the ld. CIT(A) without allowing any opportunity to the AO, the ld. AR submitted that the matter may be set aside

DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Ahmedabad vs. Hiralal Dayaram Thakkar, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 158/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 157, 158 & 159/Ahd/2024 & Cross Objection Nos. 39, 40 & 41/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) बनाम/ Dcit Hiralal Dayaram Thakkar Central Circle-2(4), 1, Nilkanth Complex, Nr. Vs. Ahmedabad Tv-9, Jivraj Park, Gujarat – 380051 Hiralal Dayaram Thakkar & Dcit 1, Nilkanth Complex, Nr. Central Circle-2(4), Tv-9, Jivraj Park, Gujarat Ahmedabad - 380051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanpt3721E (Appellant / Cross Objector) .. (Respondent) Shri Vivek Chavda & Shri Nishit Assessee By : Jesur, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. Dr 06/03/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 12/03/2025

For Appellant: Jesur, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 68

deleting the addition of Rs.3,45,46,640/-, which was based on incorrect appreciation of facts of the case. With respect to admission of additional evidences by the ld. CIT(A) without allowing any opportunity to the AO, the ld. AR submitted that the matter may be set aside

DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Ahmedabad vs. Hiralal Dayaram Thakkar, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 157/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 157, 158 & 159/Ahd/2024 & Cross Objection Nos. 39, 40 & 41/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) बनाम/ Dcit Hiralal Dayaram Thakkar Central Circle-2(4), 1, Nilkanth Complex, Nr. Vs. Ahmedabad Tv-9, Jivraj Park, Gujarat – 380051 Hiralal Dayaram Thakkar & Dcit 1, Nilkanth Complex, Nr. Central Circle-2(4), Tv-9, Jivraj Park, Gujarat Ahmedabad - 380051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanpt3721E (Appellant / Cross Objector) .. (Respondent) Shri Vivek Chavda & Shri Nishit Assessee By : Jesur, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. Dr 06/03/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 12/03/2025

For Appellant: Jesur, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 68

deleting the addition of Rs.3,45,46,640/-, which was based on incorrect appreciation of facts of the case. With respect to admission of additional evidences by the ld. CIT(A) without allowing any opportunity to the AO, the ld. AR submitted that the matter may be set aside

Mahesh Dattaguru Kunte, Sindhudurg vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 285/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.285/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Mahesh Dattaguru Kunte, Vs Nfac, Delhi House No. 85, Sangirdewadi, Kudal, Sindhudurg-416520 Maharashtra Pan-Bqlpk1938H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 147Section 250

case was called for none appeared on behalf of the assessee. However an application dated 06.03.2025 has been filed on 10.03.2025 requesting for admission of additional evidence under rule 29 of the ITAT rules. Considering the facts of the case we proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3. Assessee has raised

M/S. Douceur Sportwear Mfg. Co Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-15(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 6152/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Smt. Swapnil Newaskar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 41Section 41(1)

Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. During the hearing, the learned Authorized Representative (“learned AR") sought admission of additional evidence filed vide an application dated 25.11.2024 under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. The learned AR submitted that due to fire ... under section 41(1) of the Act. The learned AR submitted that the documents now produced by the assessee along with application seeking admission of additional evidence were obtained by it from the Income Tax Department and forms part of the assessment record for the preceding assessment year. Accordingly

M/S.Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1) Presently Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 219/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.219/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Dy.Cit बनाम/ Ff – 17/A, Pariseema Complex Circle-1(1)(1) V/S. C.G. Road Presently Cen. Cir.1(3) Navrangpura Ahmedabad Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aadca 4844 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 30.03.2022, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Whereby The Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”]. Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit Asst. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 40Section 68

years to support the repayment of loan which were submitted to AO and CIT(A). 6. The Departmental Representative (DR) strongly opposed the admission of additional evidence, contending that the assessee had been provided sufficient opportunity to explain its case during the assessment proceedings, appellate proceedings before