“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

DCIT, Circle -6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Ascent Buildhome Developers Limited, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 846/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Jitendra Wadhwa, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

dated 12/02/24, on page 13): “During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant filed additional evidence under Rule 46A and requested its admission. The additional evidence includes ledger accounts of the parties to whom payments were made in respect of purchases and development, as well as bills and vouchers ... that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the mandatory requirements under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which govern the admission of additional evidence in appellate proceedings. As per Rule 46A, the admission of additional evidence is subject to strict procedural safeguards, including: i. Recording Reasons

Karina Kunjana Kapoor, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

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

ITA 3553/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklam/S. Ashirvad Steels & Alloys Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd, Ward-1(1), 8Th K. M. Stone, Meerut Road, Muzaffarnagar, Muzaffar Nagar, Up Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadca4543J

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 68

have noted that the ld CIT(A) had requisitioned a remand report from the ld AO in which he recommended non admission of additional evidences on the premise that the parties were not verifiable. In para 11.6 of his order the ld CIT(A) observed that onus

Munir Ahmed Shaikh, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Bharuch

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

ITA 685/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 685/Srt/2024 (Ay 2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Munir Ahmed Shaikh Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Maru Street Hansot, Bharuch, 1St Floor Station Road, बनाम Bharuch-393 030 Near Panchwati Chowk, Vs [Pan : Cfwps 1599 M] Bharuch-392 001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

assesee’s case is squarely falls within four exceptions as mentioned in Rule- 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. So far as admission of additional evidence is concerned, Ld. AR of the assessee relied upon following case law:  Sri Shankar Khandasari Sugar Mills ... land though before Assessing Officer assessee claimed of land holding of 4.04 hectare. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the plea of assessee for admission of additional evidence under Rule-46A, which was not found within 5 Munir A.Shaikh conditions prescribed under clause-(a) to (d) of sub-Rule

Indian Magic Eye Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO, Pune

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

ITA 1579/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Arun PatankarFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270

/NFAC in his order has mentioned that the assessee has not filed any application under Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules for admission of additional evidences submitted before him during the course of appellate proceedings and accordingly the evidences/documents filed before him were not considered

Indian Magic Eye Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO, Pune

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

ITA 1578/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Arun PatankarFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270

Samptrao Rangnath Deokate, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(5), Pune

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

ITA 2722/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2722/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Samptrao Rangnath Deokate, V The Income Tax Officer, Nirawagaj, Baramati, S Ward-14(5), Pune. Pune – 413102. Pan: Bispd2386K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Deepak S Sasar – Ar Miss. Indira R Adkil – Addl.Cit(Dr) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 27/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tas(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18; Dated 22.10.2024; Emanating From Ex-Parte Assessment Order Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 17.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld. Cit (A) Has Wrongly Confirmed The Addition Made By The Ld Assessing Officer Of Rs.45,32,442/- To The Total Income Of The Assessee

Section 144Section 250

which were downloaded from Income Tax Portal to demonstrate that Assessee had filed all these details before ld.CIT(A) along with application for admission of additional evidence. Ld.AR submitted that ld.CIT(A) rejected the Assessee’s petition for admission of additional evidence and confirmed the assessment order. Ld.AR submitted that ... paper book at page no.64 to 67 and it is noted that Assessee had uploaded elaborate Annexures along with petition for admission of additional evidence. However, ld.CIT(A) has rejected Assessee’s petition for admission of additional evidence on the ground that Assessee failed to prove that there were sufficient

Prem Lata Pandya, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

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

ITA 1471/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1471/JPR/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2019-20 Prem Lata Pandya बनाम Deputy Commissioner of 302, Raj Mension, D-299, Vs. Income Tax, Tulsi Marg Bani Park, Central Circle-4, Jaipur. Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./ PAN/GIR No.:ACXPJ9951A निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assessee by : Sh. S.L.Poddar, Adv. राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by: Sh. Gautam Singh

For Appellant: Sh. S.L.Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 115BSection 127Section 132ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

being assessable u/s 56, Le., as returned, or uls. 69A, as assessed, with the tax rate being consequential. The plea for admission of additional evidence is not maintainable, both on facts and in law." Thus, dismisses the Assessee's appeal. m) Further, Section 115 BBE was inserted by Finance

Sri. Vivek Ramchandra Kawade, Mumbai vs. ITO Circle-27(3), Navi Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the asessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 820/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarvs. Cit -27(3) Shri Vivek Ramchandra Room No. 423, 4Th Kawade Floor, Tower No. 6, B-11, Sita Estate, Mahul Vashi Rly Stn, Vashi Road, Chembur, Mumbai – Navi Mumbai – 400 400074. 703. Pan/Gir No. Bgtpk5019H (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tek Ram Vs CIT, (2014) 44 taxman.com, 367 (SC) and pleaded for admission of additional evidence. 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR contested the application filed by the assessee for leading additional evidence and submitted that proper

Shamrock International Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Income Tax Department. NFAC, Delhi, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4785/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainvs. Ito, Ward – 3(3)(1) Shamrock International Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Mk 83-E, Hansraj Pragji Bldg, Road, Churchgate, Dr. E. Moses Road, Worlki, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400018. Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5756L (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 69

reconsider the said request. 6. During the course of the ongoing appellate proceedings, the appellant has filed application for admission of additional evidence before the Ld. CIT(A). Enclosed Copy of Application for admission of additional evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) as "Exhibit - G". 7. With regard

Sarvesh Bardia, Rajnandgaon vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Rajnandgaon

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 299/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.299/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sarvesh Bardia Bardia Niwas, Sadar Bazar, Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Pan: Aqbpb3485F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) erred in facts and in law in rejecting the application for admission of additional evidences filed by appellant u/r 46A of Income Tax Rules. Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that there is no reason or 3 Sarvesh Bardia

Kamaluddin, Barabanki vs. ITO-5(4), Barabanki

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

ITA 574/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow23 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2018-19 Kamaluddin V. Income Tax Officer 5(4) 339, Satbarpur Barabanki Zaminhusainbad, Subeha Barabanki Tan/Pan:Dlvpk2157M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 01 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 271A

hearing before me, the Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) invited my attention to the Application moved by the assessee for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the additional evidences in the form of Bank Statements, Agreements, Affidavit

Achla Malhotra, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-24(1), Delhi

ITA 4252/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147

lapsed since the first communication was sent to the AO seeking the Remand Report in view of the appellant’s request for admission of additional evidences u/r 46A. Administratively, this appeal is categorized as ‘priority’ on the ITBA system and hence early disposal of the same is stipulated. The appellant ... juncture, it is also important to recall that period of about six month’s was allowed yet no Remand Report or refutation of admissibility of additional evidences is received. 5.16.8. As discussed in one of the foregoing paragraphs, the appellant has cited a decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi

Soni and Brothers, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(6), Surat

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

ITA 808/SRT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.807 & 808/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Physical Hearing) Soni & Brother, Vs. The Ito, H-29, New Sardar Market, Dumbhai Ward – 2(3)(6), Patia, Surat - 395010 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawfs6792H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ashish Bhoola, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/01/2025

Section 250Section 270A

ITBA portal by the assessee. However, the explanation of the assessee was not accepted. The CIT(A) observed that no petition for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A has been made during appellate proceedings. He did not admit the additional evidence and further observed that such additional evidence

Soni and Brothers, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(6), Surat

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

ITA 807/SRT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Section 250Section 270A

Kunapareddy Sujatha, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 444/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Balakrishnan. Sassessment Year: 2016-17 Kunapareddy Sujatha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3(1), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan : Akfpk1757R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Ar. Revenue By: Ms. K. Sandhya Rani, Sr.Dr. Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Ms. K. Sandhya Rani, Sr.DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69C

Appeals) erred in not considering the additional evidence under the erroneous belief that the appellant did not file any accompanying petition for admission of additional evidence. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.56,92,000 made by the assessing officer ... appeal before us. 4 6. Before us, at the outset, ld.AR submitted that the assessee had filed an application for the admission of additional evidence before the Ld.CIT(A) at the appellate stage, as the assessee was ex parte before the Assessing Officer. The ld.AR has drawn our attention

Rockfort and Polymed Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu 1 Chennai, Chennai

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

ITA 1003/CHNY/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1003 /Chny/2023 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2006-07 Rockfort & Polymed Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.39, Hunters Road, Large Tax Payers Unit(Ltu), Choolai S.O, Perambur, Chennai Purasawalkam, Chennai-600 112. [Pan: Aaacr3242C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri P.M.Kathir, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vinod.D.Mudaliar, Jcit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod.D.Mudaliar, JCIT

Section 250

hands of the assessee for AY-2005-06 and 2006-07 on identical grounds and which, inter-alia, involve common issues of admission of additional evidences under Rule-46A etc. Considering the same, apropos to the note sheet entry extracted above, the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal

The DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Ahmedabad vs. J.A . Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 166/AHD/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69C

given for making the additions, the appellant company filed detailed submissions, rebuttal to the remand report of the AO as well as justification admission of additional evidence under for Rule 46-A of the 1.T Rules, 1961. With regard to the Identity of the share applicant companies / proving

Shree Krishna Developers, Dhule vs. ITO, Ward 2, Dhule

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

ITA 414/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.414/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Shree Krishna Developers, Ito, Ward 2, Dhule Hall No. A-5, Second Floor, Garud Complex, Sakri Vs. Road, Dhule-424001 Maharashtra Pan-Achfs7744L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Shri Sanket M Joshi Department By: Ms Shilpa N C, Additional- Cit Date Of Hearing: 21-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 05-03-2025

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Ms Shilpa N C, Additional-

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40

grounds of appeal. 5] 3. At the outset, Ld. counsel for the assessee referring to the application under rule 46A requesting for admission of additional evidence prayed for restoring the issue on merit to the file of the lower authorities. 4. Facts in brief relating to the issue raised ... issue to lower authorities. 5. On the other hand Ld. DR supported the order of lower authorities but did not object to the admission of additional evidence. 3 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. Issue before us is regarding the claim

Boddapalli Hema Sundara Rao, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 277/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble

Section 143(3)Section 68

gains for the property sold by the assessee. The assessee before us has filed the bank statements and the documents while praying for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules. We therefore in order to provide one more opportunity to the assessee by following the principles

Pradeep Kumar Ladiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 1071/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1071 & 1069/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Pradeep Kumar Ladiwala बनाम CIT(A), 242 Haryana Colony, Barkat Vs. Jaipur-4, Jaipur Nagar, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AARPL 0752 F अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by: None राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR सुनवाई की ता

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 68

facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Appellate authority grossly erred in law and facts by rejecting application of the assessee for admission of additional evidences summarily. Further, the Ld. Appellate authority also erred in referring to a remand report of Ld. AO which was never called upon. Even ... facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Appellate authority grossly erred in law and facts by rejecting application of the assessee for admission of additional evidences summarily. Further, the Ld. Appellate authority also erred in referring to a remand report of Ld. AO which was never called upon. Even