← 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

Shramik Nagri Sahkari Patsanstha, Maryadit, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(1), Pune

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

ITA 2283/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 148ASection 250Section 69ASection 80P(2)(a)

above grounds of appeal.” Submission of Ld.AR : 2. Ld.Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted a paper book with a petition for admission of additional evidence. Ld.AR submitted that ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non-compliance. Ld.AR further submitted that assessee could not file

Shri Abhijit Uttamrao Deshmukh, Beed vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Aurangabad

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

ITA 1372/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1372/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Abhijit Uttamrao Vs. Acit, Circle-3, Deshmukh, Aurangabad. Vithal Niwas, Ganesh Par Road, Parli Vaijanath, Beed, Beed- 431515. Pan : Agwpd1032B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dr. Prayag Jha Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31.12.2024 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.05.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Not Condoning The Delay & Dismissing The Appeal Without Considering The Reasons Causing Delay & Without Appreciating That The Assessee Being Chairman Of The Maharashtra Shetkari Sugar Mills Was Facing Multiple Litigations Relating To Financial Problems Of The Said Organization Which Was The Main Cause Of Delay, Apart From Others, In Filing Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 144Section 147Section 148

have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book and application for admission of additional evidences furnished by the assessee. We find that the assessment order was passed in absence of the assessee and since the appeal was filed belatedly

Appusamy Giriraj, Karur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward I

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2473/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2473/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Appusamy Giriraj Ito बनाम #56/111/Ya Ganeshapuram Middle Ward-1 Street, South Puliyur Post, Karur. / Vs. Karur-639 114. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Alcpg-4312-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Kavitha (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

During first appeal, the assessee failed to make any representation and accordingly, the assessment was confirmed. During hearing, Ld. AR has pleaded for admission of additional evidences and stated that the assessee is in a position to substantiate is case before lower authorities. The same has been opposed

Mr. Roshan A Kudalkar Through Legal Heir Mr. Swaroop R Kudalkar, Khed, Ratnagiri vs. ITO, Ward-3, Ratnagiri

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2276/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2276/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mr.Roshan A Kudalkar V The Income Tax Officer, (Through Legal Heir S Ward-3, Ratnagiri. Mr.Swaroop R Kudalkar), Room No.10/7, Virangula, Behind Animal Hospital Khed, Ratnagiri – 415709. Pan: Agkpk3817B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani – Ar Revenue By Smt. Shraddha Nichai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 11/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2015-16 Dated 19.08.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On Facts & Circumstances Prevalling In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Act It Be Held That Ld. Cit(A)-Nfac Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Without Intimating About His Intention To Dismiss Appeal For Delay Of 46 Days In Filing Form 35. Accordingly, The Order So Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-Nfac Be Kindly Quashed & Ld. Cit(A)-Nfac Be Kindly Directed To Condone The Delay & Allow The Appellant To File It Submission On Merits & Legality. Accordingly, Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

Section 243ASection 250

this appeal was manually filed before the ld.CIT(A).Assessee filed additional evidence before the ld.CIT(A) and also filed a petition for admission of additional evidence. Then, the ld.CIT(A)-2, Kolhapur called for a Remand Report from ITO, Ward-3, Ratnagiri. The ITO, Ward-3, Ratnagiri vide

Eapen George, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward International Taxation 1(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2126/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Muthukrishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 142Section 144Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 234Section 69

admit the additional evidence as firstly no proper procedure was followed for making an application before the learned dispute resolution panel for admission of additional evidence. When the admission of additional evidence was applied before the learned DRP, there was no sufficient time left with the learned dispute resolution panel ... placed additional evidence along with the objection. As those objections were not in accordance with the rules of The Dispute Resolution Panel for admission of additional evidence, those were not admitted and adjudicated upon. Further the dispute resolution panel when presented with an application for additional evidence, it was rejected

Abhinav Malik, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-31(1), Delhi

ITA 3525/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanabhinav Malik Income Tax Officer, D 114, Saket, Ward-31(1), Delhi-110 017 Vs. Delhi. Pan:Aiypm6590K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Divya Gujral, Ca Department By Shriyogesh Kumar Nayyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/12/2024

For Appellant: (i) That the transaction in hand i.e., the property transacted located at 18, Bl
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 56Section 56(2)(vii)

during the separate assessment proceedings conducted in the case of the firm M/s. Abhinav Exports w.r.t. the same property. The said request for admission of additional evidences submitted by the appellant along with the valuation report, along with the additional ground taken by the appellant has been quoted above

M/S. M B M Developers, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-4(3)(1), Bengaluru

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2091/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv C. Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 40

explanation of assessee held that assessee has not filed any submissions supported by proper evidence along with computation under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidence in the appellate proceedings and findings of the ld. AO have not been controverted by proper evidence. In view Page

Decathlon Sports India Private Limited, Bangalore, Karnataka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 2(2)(1), Bengaluru, Karnataka

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated

ITA 1874/BANG/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Dec 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CA
Section 143(3)Section 92C

paper book containing two volumes of paper book containing 2385 pages, one case law compilation containing 16 judicial precedents, an application for admission of additional evidence. The Ld DR also submitted a written note and judicial precedents. On Ground no 4 to 11, contesting the issue ... foreign AE should be considered as tested party. TPO and the ld. DRP could not be proper. However, he referred to application for admission of additional evidence dated 28.10.2024 wherein the assessee submits the audited financial statements of AE, Desipro with respect to ground

Nasik Rotary Charitable Trust, Nashik vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 1609/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

have been prepared, I in the interest of justice and being fair to both the parties, deem fit to accept the request for admission of additional evidence and remit the issue to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to examine the veracity of claim of the assessee wherein complete details

Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Pune vs. Sunil Asher, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1289/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1289/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer, V Sunil Asher, Ward-6(1), Pune. S B-602, Verde Residence Collection, Near Gurunanak Dairy, Kalyaninagar, Maharashtra – 411037. Pan: Acapa1980B Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 18.04.2024 For The A.Y.2016-17, Emanating From Assessment Order U/Sec.144 Of The Act For A.Y.2016-17, Dated 16.12.2018. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act, By Accepting The Claim Of The Assessee That The Source Of The Investments Of Rs.5.87 Cr. Are Lifetime Accumulations & Savings Of The Assessee Made Out Of Earnings In Canada & Thailand, As Well As In India, Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessee Has Failed To Produce Any Supporting Documentary Evidences During The Assessment Proceedings Before The Ao. While Doing So, The Ld.Cit(A) Also Failed To Actually Examine Whether The Accumulations Claimed To Be Past Savings, Were Disclosed In The Itrs Filed For The Respective Years & Offered To Tax.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 250(4)Section 68

Ld.CIT(A) has admitted these documents without providing opportunity to the Assessing Officer. The ld.CIT(A) has also not recorded any satisfaction for admission of additional evidence which is mandatory. Therefore, ld.CIT(A) has violated the Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The Rule 46A of the Income

Mithu Ram, Dirba vs. Income Tax Officer, Sunam

In the result, ground no. 4 & 5 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 621/CHANDI/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Cit(A) Proves This Fact. 2. That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient & Reasonable Cause In Not Attending To The Proceedings Before The Cit(A) Due Oversight/ Skip Of Mail Regarding The Date Of Hearing Because Busy In Filling The Income Tax Returns.

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Chopra, Advocate for Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 68

finding recorded by the ld CIT(A) in accepting or rejecting the additional evidences so submitted by the assessee. Once an application for admission of additional evidence is submitted by the assessee, the ld CIT(A) is required to dispose off the same and cannot keep a silence ... assessee is in appeal before us. 21. During the course of hearing, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has moved a prayer for admission of additional evidence in the form of bank statement of Shri Amrik Singh Kharaud and Shri Tejinder Singh. It was submitted that since the assessee faced

Sau Anandibai Hirachand Shah Phaltankar Trust, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 60/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 12A

rejecting the application for registration as a Religious Trust u/s 12AB under Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The appellant request for admission of additional evidences if any requires in support of above grounds of appeal. 5. The appellant craves, leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the grounds

Sarla Bhargava, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 6(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is fully allowed in above terms

ITA 1161/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalsarla Bhargava, Sb-166, Gandhi Nagar, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur 302 001. Pan No.:Acgpb 5078B ..... Appellant Vs. Ito,Ward-6(4), Jaipur – 302 001. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Anoop Bhatia, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT, Ld
Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 69

paper book submitted by the assessee before us vide dated: 16.10.2024 confirming the submission of petition filed before the Ld. CIT (A) for admission of additional evidences, copy of the letter issued by the JAO, asking the assessee to justify the additional evidences filed before the Ld. CIT (A), Submissions

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Range-1, Lucknow. vs. M/S. Mg Autosales Private Limited, Lucknow

The appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 58/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshradcit, Circle-1 M/S. Mg Autosales Pvt Ltd V. Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57, 3/44 Ambalika, Gokhale Ramtirath Marg, Lucknow- Vihar Marg, Lucknow- 226001. 226001. Pan:Aamcs0717R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashok Seth, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11 12 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Seth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 68

materials available on record. It is found that in ground nos. 9 & 11 of appeal; objection has been raised by Revenue against the admission of additional evidence by the Ld. CIT(A) without seeking remand report from the Assessing Officer as per the provisions of Rules 46A of Income

Suryasri Poultry Complex, Kapavaram vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward_1, Kakinada

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

ITA 188/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.188/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Suryasri Poultry Complex V. Ito – Ward – 1 Income Tax Office D.No. 4-148, Rajanagaram Road Deepthi Towers Biccavolu Mandal, Kapavaram Main Road, Kakinada – 533001 East Godavari – 533343 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Abgfs6509P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

dismissed the appeal of the assessee, stating that as per Rule 46A of I.T. Rules, the assessee has not filed any petition for admission of additional evidences. The Ld.AR prayed for remitting the matter to Ld.CIT(A). 7. Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld.DR”] relied

Sajjan Kumar Agrawal, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Siliguri

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

ITA 658/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountantmember Andshri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicialmember I.T.A. No.658/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sajjan Kumar Agarwal………….……………..............................……….……Appellant C/O Pradip Lakhotia, 2Nd Floor, Metro Plaza, Sf Road, Siliguri, W.B.- 734005. [Pan:Acrpa8364L] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), Siliguri.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Dhiraj Lakhotia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shrivineet Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 18, 2024 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Against The Order Dated 02.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre[Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Of Rs.29,00,000/- As Added By The Assessing Officer Towards Cash Deposits In The Bank Accounts U/S 69A Of The Act. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Pointed Out That An Application Has Been Filed On 07.11.2024 Under Rule 29A Of The Itat Rules Praying Before The Bench For Admission Of Additional Evidences Comprising Of Affidavit, Voting Card, Adhaar Card, Bank Statement Etc Which Has Huge Bearing In The Correct Appreciation & Adjudication Of The Issue Involved In The Present Appeal. The Ld. Ar Submitted That The

Section 250Section 69A

assessee pointed out that an application has been filed on 07.11.2024 under Rule 29A of the ITAT Rules praying before the Bench for admission of additional evidences comprising of affidavit, voting card, Adhaar Card, bank statement etc which has huge bearing in the correct appreciation and adjudication of the issue

DCIT, Central Circle-II, Noida vs. Nagpal Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1596/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumar[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Dcit Vs Nagpal Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-Ii 697 Katra Neel Chandni Noida. Chowk, New Delhi-110006. Pan-Aabcn9620F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. & Shri Govind Agarwal, Ca Date Of Hearing 21.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.12.2024

under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 do not hold water. The provisions of Rule 46A enabling the assessee to seek admission of additional evidences is founded on principles of natural justice. Besides, the Ld.CIT(A) is also empowered to call for evidences and make enquiry under

Nefab India Private Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

ITA 509/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Nefab India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Gate No.519 1/4/8, Circle 3(1), 30 Km. Milestone, Gurgaon. Near Kalubai Mandir, Golden Quadrilateral Nh-4, Pune, Maharashtra – 412213. Pan : Aaccn1599G

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanveer, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

accordingly stressed for disposal of application under Rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 for admission of additional evidences. 5. We have gone through the Annexure I, which contains the additional evidences and primarily the same are for the purpose of establishing that intra group services were ... issue on merits are restored to the files of TPO/AO for fresh determination in accordance with the law as per the directions for admission of additional evidences given by us. AO/TPO shall be at liberty to enquire upon the same with regard to their authenticity and content. 8. The appeal

Uddhav Dattu Marathe HUF, Jalgaon vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Jalgaon

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

ITA 1514/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1514/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Uddhav Dattu Marathe Vs. Ito, Ward- 2(2), Huf, Jalgaon. Prop. Of Shri Govind Prabhu Trading Co., At Post Pimpalgaon Hareshwar, Tal. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon- 424203. Pan : Aaahu6015M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri Basavaraj Hiremath Date Of Hearing : 10.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.05.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Ex-Parte On The Ground That There Was Non Compliance On The Part Of The Assessee To The Various Notices Issued By Him

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

hands of the of the said interest income received u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. 7] The assessee requests for admission of additional evidences in support of its case. 8] The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Facts

Right Channel Construction Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 13(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2613/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2016-17 Right Channel Constructions Acit, Circle-13(3)(2), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 229, 101, 1St Floor, Vs. 2Nd Floor, Kailash Ramkripa Chs, Aayakar Bhavan, Kailashpuri Road, M.K.Road, Upper Govind Nagar, Mumbai. Malad East, Mumbai Pan : Aaecr2174D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Revenue By : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-11-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-12-2024

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 68

addition without appreciating complete details. Hence, the Ld.CIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO. The 3 AO objected to the admission of additional evidences, but proceeded to offer his comments on those evidences. The Ld.CIT(A) also, after examining the remand report, took the view that