“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

Gpa Capital Foods Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle 10, Delhi

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

ITA 2846/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumargpa Capital Foods Pvt. Assistant Limited Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd), F-1734-1735, Dsiidc . Industrial Area, Narela Circle-10, Delhi-110 040 Delhi-110 002 Pan : Aajca 1965 A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

ACIT from the appellant company @ 30% by taking the objection that these are additional evidences and no separate application for admission of additional evidence under rule 46A is filed. The evidences in the form of ITR's for AY 2018-19 are placed in paper book at pages

Ramesh Kumar, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Panchkula

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

ITA 745/CHANDI/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 250

contained at page 1 to 21 of the assessee’s paper book. Further the assessee also moved an application under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidence and which finds place at page 22 to 107 of the assessee’s paper book. It was further submitted that another written submission

Ewow Av Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -9(2)(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3830/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Ewow Av Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of 302, Mahavir Ind. Estate, Income Tax, Off. Mahakali Caves, Circle – 9(2)(2), Andheri East, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai – 400 093 (Pan : Aagca8548J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.M. Bhosale, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 69A

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) assessee had filed an application under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules) for admission of additional evidence, including the cash sale customer ledgers, invoices of cash sales containing details of the customer, product description, etc. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ... negative balance. During the course of proceedings before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), assessee filed an application under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidence, including the correct cash books forming part of audited books of accounts. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) remanded the matter

Income Tax Officer, Tiruvallur vs. Govinda Samy Thanigaivel, Gummidipoondi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2118/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, Addl.CIT

Section 147Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

aggrieved, has also filed an appeal before ITAT in ITA No.2118/CHNY/2024. In Revenue’s appeal, the primary ground is with reference to the admission of additional evidence by the CIT(A) in violation of provision of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 5. The ld.AR candidly admits that ... evidences. The CIT(A) without calling for a remand report had made an estimation of income at 8% of the gross receipts. The admission of additional evidence without calling for a remand report is in violation of provision of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. In light

Govinda Samy Thanigaivel, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Thiruvallur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1917/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, Addl.CIT

Section 147Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

Neeta Tiwari, Lucknow vs. ITO-4(1), Lucknow

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

ITA 493/LKW/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Nov 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2022-23 Neeta Tiwari V. The Ito-4(1) A-6, South City Lucknow - New Ambedkar University Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Afopt6232J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

this head, if any, would not exceed Rs.9,21,544/- on a correct computation. He filed before me an application dated 07.10.2024 for admission of additional evidence in the form of statement showing computation of due date of payment of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI, date of credit of the same

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. E R M India Pvt Ltd, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 237/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 199Section 46A

learned counsel adverted to ground no. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal (supra) and submitted that the ground raised by the Revenue challenging admission of additional evidences by the CIT(A) in violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules is totally misconceived and opposed to the material on record ... invoices, service segments towards intragroup services and other voluminous documentary evidences were shown to have filed before the Assessing Officer. Thus, objection towards admission of additional evidences is without any foundation. The learned counsel further pointed out that the assessee has obtained various intragroup services and made payments

Axalta Coating Systems India Private Limted, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi

In the result the grounds of appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 9344/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

adjustment of Rs. 193,506,291/-. 6. In the course of hearing before us, the assessee submitted that it seeks a decision on admission of additional evidence filedvide application dated 02.05.2023 under Rule 29 of the Income-Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.We, therefore, without going into the merits ... case, dwell on the aspect of the admission of additional evidence only. 7. In the course of hearing for admission of additional evidence before us, the ld AR of the assessee submitted that the lower authorities did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee to furnish the documentary evidence

J 979 Kunkalamarru Primary Agricultural Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Prakasam vs. ITO., Ward-1, Chirala

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

ITA 799/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos. 798 & 799/Hyd/2024 (धनधाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Srinivas Maddury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mookambikeyan S – Sr. AR

assessee during the course of assessment proceedings and also before the Appellate Authority, and observed that in the absence of any application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”), the claim of the assessee cannot be considered and therefore, no opportunity

J 979 Kunkalamarru Primary Agricultural Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Prakasam vs. ITO., Ward-1, Chirala

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

ITA 798/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos. 798 & 799/Hyd/2024 (धनधाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Srinivas Maddury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mookambikeyan S – Sr. AR

Bsnl Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Kolhapur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1957/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1957/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Vaibhav R. ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit

Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 44ASection 80P

Income-tax Officer [2022] 144 taxmann.com 170 (Bangalore - Trib.), relied upon by the appellant in its submission. 5] The appellant requests for admission of additional evidences in support of its case. 6] The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal

Natesan Paranthaman, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-10(3), Chennai

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

ITA 2497/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2497/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Natesan Paranthaman, The Income Tax Officer, 61, Karuna Filling Station, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward -10(3), Bypass Road, Redhills, Chennai. Chennai – 600 052. Pan: Aadpp 4740M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A)’S Order Dated 31.07.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-18. 2. At The Very Outset, We Notice The Cit(A) Has Passed An Ex-Parte Order. The Reason For Passing An Ex-Parte Order Was That The Assessee Did Not Respond To Any Of The Notices Issued From The Office Of The First Appellate Authority For Furnishing Submissions / Documents In Support Of His Case.

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 221Section 250

paper-book, the assessee has filed additional evidences and a petition under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 for admission of additional evidence. It was stated by the ld.AR, the assessee had furnished the necessary documents / evidences in support of the source of cash deposits during ... affairs along with the detailed schedules, bank account statement, IOC statement, etc. The assessee before the Tribunal has filed a petition for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. The additional evidences now sought to be admitted is with regard

Lumis Biotech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 7(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2132/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrilumis Biotech Pvt. Ltd. V/S. Dcit Circle 7(1)(2) 501, Arun Chambers, बनाम Room No. 130, 1St Floor, Tardeo, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Maharashtra-400034 Road, Maharashtra-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacl1066G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Dharmveer D. Yadav

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 35Section 352A

represent its case due to circumstances beyond its control. 3 The Hon. CIT(A) was not justified in summarily rejecting the prayer for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A. 4 The Hon. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.12,88,242/- U/S.352AB made

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Rangaswamy Bhaskaran, Kodungaiyur

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

ITA 1353/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 132

report dated 19.12.2023 preliminarily e AO in his report dated 19.12.2023 preliminarily e AO in his report dated 19.12.2023 preliminarily objected to the admission of additional evidences and on merits observed objected to the admission of additional evidences and on merits observed objected to the admission of additional evidences

Mihir Bhoj Post Graduate College, Dadri, Gautambudh Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward, Ghaziabad

ITA 63/DEL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2010-11 Mihir Bhoj Post Vs. Income Tax Officer Graduate College, C/O Exemption Ward, Sanjeev Anand & Ghaziabad Associates, 136, Navyug Market, Uttar Pradesh- 201001 Pan :Aaajm0461D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate & Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Department By Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr, Dr

Section 142(1)

dated 09.10.2017, the assessee did not file the return of income nor made sufficient compliance, the Learned CIT(A) rejected the application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Act. 3. Under this facts and circumstances of the matter, the Learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted

Shaik Mahammadadil, Kadapa vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kadapa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 925/HYD/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.925/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri K.Abhiroop Bhargav, ARFor Respondent: Shri AVES Madhukar, DR

Section 142(1)Section 69A

Assessee deposited the entire amount in his HDFC account during demonetization period. 5. Learned AR furnished a petition filed by the assessee for admission of additional evidence in the form of sale deed and confirmation cum affidavit received from his father and pleaded to admit the same as it forms ... deposit, but the assessee failed to substantiate his claim with evidence during the assessment as well as appellate proceedings. Assessee’s request for admission of additional evidence at this stage of proceedings is nothing but an afterthought of the assessee. He, therefore, pleaded to uphold the order passed

Jagdish Babulal Thakkar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Range 26 1 1 Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 4305/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 234B

were not received and accordingly the assessee did not submit any details before the AO. The assessee also submitted a petition for admission of additional evidence as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules) before the CIT(A) with various documentary evidences explaining the source

Kamat Hotels (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

ITA 913/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

course of assessment proceedings were not taken into consideration by the Assessing Officer. The Appellant also filed additional documents along with application for admission of additional evidence. The CIT(A) called for a report in relation from the Assessing Officer in this regard. The submissions and supporting documents filed ... Assessee before the CIT(A) that the details/submission furnished by the Assessee were not considered. Further, the Assessee had also moved application for admission of additional evidence being the bank certificates issued by 15 banks certifying the actual cash deposited by the appellant during demonetization period and the copies

Kamat Hotels (India) Limited, Vile Parle Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai Maharashtra

ITA 894/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

Income Tax Officer Ward- 2(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Kamat Hotels India Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1483/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)