← 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

Behara Educational Trust, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption Ward), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 164/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.164/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Behra Educational Trust, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H.No. 14-7, Rrv Puram, Exemption Ward, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam-530027, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aactb5482D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 30/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not allowing the appellant’s claim for admission of additional evidences and further erred in not considering the evidences filed before him before adjudicating the appeal on the plea that the appellant had not made ... application requesting for admission of additional evidence as required under Rule 46A(1) of the Act. 3. That having regard to the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not reversing the action of the Ld. AO in not treating

Shreeji Developers, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Vadodara

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

ITA 1526/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1526/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shreeji Developers The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Nishad Residency Ward-3(1)(2) V/S. Flat -5, 3Rd Floor Vadodara 19, Vinayak Society Near Natubhai Circle, Gotri Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Adbfs 9273 P अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Karan Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Karan Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69C

hearing before us the assessee has filed an application under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, seeking the admission of additional evidence in the form of signed confirmations from customers, along with corresponding receipts, to substantiate the advances received towards booking amounts. These amounts were utilized ... property purchase and payment of stamp duty. The Departmental Representative did not object to admission of additional evidence. 6. After considering the submissions of both parties and the judicial precedents cited by the assessee (including Sri Shankar Khandasari Sugar Mills vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 669 [Karnataka High Court

Halwasiya Properties Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-3(5), Lucknow

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

ITA 204/LKW/2022[F.Y. 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Oct 2024

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Halwasiya Properties Private Income Tax Officer-3(5), Lucknow Limited, Halwasiya Court, Vs. New, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57, Hazratganj, Lucknow- Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow- 226001 226001 Pan:Aaach9708D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Devashish Mehrotra, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Gayasuddin, Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing: 03.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act Passed On 23.09.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Is Without Proper Opportunity & Contrary To The Principles Of Audi Alteram Partem And, Therefore, The Same Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Set Aside. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In Law, The Cit(A), Nfac Is Not Justified In Treating The Loan Of Rs.50,00,000/- Taken By The Appellant As Fictitious Loan. 3. That The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,25,000/- For Alleged Accommodation Entry Of Loan @ 2.5% & Subjecting To Tax In The Hands Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Sh. Devashish Mehrotra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gayasuddin, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

NFAC and has accordingly approached the Tribunal. During the course of 3 A.Y. 2012-13 Halwasiya Properties Pvt. Ltd. hearing, a petition for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules was submitted before us. It was submitted that the assessment of the assessee company had been

Janaki Ram Babji Rao Annam, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 129/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 129/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Janaki Ram Babji Rao Annam, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada. Ward-3(1), Pan: Aecpa4464Q Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 24/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 46ASection 69A

terms of Rule-46A, the assessee mentioned “NO”. Further, the Ld. DR argued that the assessee did not make any request for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Act. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC has acted in accordance with law and hence the decision ... that the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC did not admit the additional evidence produced by the assessee by simply holding that no request for admission of additional evidence under Rule- 46A was filed by the assessee neither in Form-35 at para 12 nor by adducing separate application under Rule

Greta Energy Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai

Appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above order

ITA 1606/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1563/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Income Tax Officer M/S.Greta Energy Limited Corporate Ward-2(3) बनाम/ Old No.22, New No.34, Chennai. Balaji Nagar 1St Street, Vs. Royapettah, Chennai-600 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcg-3417-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1606/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S.Greta Energy Limited Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Corporate Ward-2(3) Old No.22, New No.34, Balaji Nagar 1St Street, Chennai. Vs. Royapettah, Chennai-600 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcg-3417-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri Ashwin D Gowda (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Yeshwanth Kumar (Ca)-Ld.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22-10-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-10-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar (CA)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin D Gowda (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69CSection 80

alleged bogus purchases. The Ld. AR has filed an application under Rule 29 of The Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 and prayed for admission of additional evidences which inter-alia, include MVAT Form 231 of the supplier. Having heard rival submissions, the cross-appeals are disposed-off as under. The assessee

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Greta Energy Limited, Chennai

Appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above order

ITA 1563/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1563/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Income Tax Officer M/S.Greta Energy Limited Corporate Ward-2(3) बनाम/ Old No.22, New No.34, Chennai. Balaji Nagar 1St Street, Vs. Royapettah, Chennai-600 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcg-3417-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1606/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S.Greta Energy Limited Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Corporate Ward-2(3) Old No.22, New No.34, Balaji Nagar 1St Street, Chennai. Vs. Royapettah, Chennai-600 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcg-3417-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri Ashwin D Gowda (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Yeshwanth Kumar (Ca)-Ld.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22-10-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-10-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar (CA)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin D Gowda (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69CSection 80

alleged bogus purchases. The Ld. AR has filed an application under Rule 29 of The Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 and prayed for admission of additional evidences which inter-alia, include MVAT Form 231 of the supplier. Having heard rival submissions, the cross-appeals are disposed-off as under. The assessee