← 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

Shridatt Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Mumbai, Mumbai - Prabhadevi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4785/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year: 2017-18 Shridatt Sahakari Patsanstha Income Tax Officer, Maryadit Ward-22(3)(4), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69ASection 80P

though the sufficient reason for the said delay was furnished by the Appellant along with the sworn affidavit of the employee. 3 NON-ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE:- On the facts and in circumstance of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT[A] bas erred in not admitting

Viju Kumar Nair, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 843/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.L. Moolchandani, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT D/R
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69

Shri Viju Kumar Nair, Jaipur. (A), the assessee furnished explanation and placed before him the additional evidences and requested admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A of IT Rules, 1962. The ld. CIT (A) having received the additional evidences, sought comments by way of remand report from

Manish Dhankar, Jhunjhunu(Rajasthan) vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward -2-Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu-Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 817/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 56(2)(vii)

circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in law and facts by declining to accept the application for admission of additional evidences by the assessee inspite of the fact that assessee's case was well covered under Rule 46A of the statute book. Same is also

The ACIT., Patan Circle, Patan vs. Shiv Refoils and Cakes, Chansama, Patan

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1672/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1672/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Acit Shiv Refoils & Cakes बनाम/ Patan Circle, Plot No.2 Gidc Estate V/S. Patan – 384 265 Chanasma, Patan

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah & Rushin Patel, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Prithviraj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 68

report from the AO and decided on the basis of the same. Ground Numbers 1 and 2, raised by Revenue, are relating to admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A. 4. Under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, additional evidence can be admitted at the appellate stage ... remand report, did not object to the admission of the additional evidence but commented on its merits. Therefore, the admission of additional evidence by the CIT(A) was in accordance with Rule 46A, and there was no violation of the procedural requirements. 5. We find no error

Surinder Kaur, Ropar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Ropar

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

ITA 194/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kuar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 69Section 69A

Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings, prayer for admission of additional evidences was submitted before the ld CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after calling for the Remand Report from the AO as well

ITO, Ncrb Jaipur vs. Prakash Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 54/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 44ASection 68

reiterated here in below: “4.9 This reply submitted after repeated reminder is not acceptable. The AO is objecting admission of additional evidences. However, in this case the details provided by the appellant were not at all additional evidences. The appellant has demonstrated that all these submissions were made before ... Form No.3CD is annexed herewith.) 7. The assessee further rely on detailed Cash Book attached herewith as additional Evidence along with application for admission of additional Evidences. 8. The relevant addition of Rs.64820559/- towards disallowance of alleged cash payments in excess of limits prescribed

Kaushik Purshottamdas Sakaria, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3)(Previously Ward-5(2)(5)), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 475/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Bhavna Gupta Singh, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 69A

dismissed without hearing. 4. During the course of proceedings before us, the Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted an application for admission of additional evidence, explaining that the failure to respond to the show cause notice and non-appearance before the CIT(A) were due to the ill health

Ace Cabs Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Delhi, C R Building

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanace Cabs Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1 (2), 562, Silver Oak Lane, Delhi. M.G. Road, Ghitorni, Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaica4494R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 12.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Submitted An Application Under Rule 29 Of The Itat Rules For Admitting The Additional Evidences & The Contents Thereof Are Reproduced Below:-

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

observed and held by this Court in the case of A. AndisamyChettiar v. A. SubburajChettiar, reported in (2015) 17 SCC 713, the admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon the relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for adducing such ... Mankind Pharma Limited in I.T.A. No.2313/DEL/2022; order dated 01.05.2024 whereby the Hon’ble Tribunal held that where cause of substantial justice demands admission of additional evidences to arrive at just and fair conclusion, the additional evidences must be admitted. Relevant paras are reproduced as under: 10 “25. We shall first

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Mahaveer Kumar Jain, Jaipur

ITA 469/JPR/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Oct 2024
For Appellant: Shri Tanju Agarwal AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT-DR
Section 69

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुरन्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,"B" JAIPUR डॉ. एस.सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिकसदस्य एवंश्रीराठोडकमलेशजयन्तभाई, लेखा

Abbvie Therapeutics India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1095/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Abbvie Therapeutics India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Level 7 & Level 7 Prestige, Obelisk, Circle – 1(1)(1), Kasturba Road, Bangalore North, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aabca 6884 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate. Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 30.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.10.2024

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37

incurred are not freebees to doctors / medical practitioners. The assessee had filed application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, for admission of additional evidence before the FAA (Refer Page 254 and 255 of the Paper Book - I submitted by assessee). There is nothing in the impugned Order ... whereby it shows that he had rejected the assessee’s application for Page 5 of 6 admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, nor has the CIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO. The CIT(A) has omitted

Tayani Holdings Pvt Ltd, Matunga Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 8(3)(1), Mumbai, Ayakar Bhavan

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

ITA 4129/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalm/S Tayani Holdings Pvt Ltd Vs. Ito- 8(3)(1), 285, Park View Bhiwanji R.No.616, Arjan Khimji Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Central Railway, Matunga, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400019. Mumbai.400020. Pan/Gir No. Aadct3311K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 153CSection 234ASection 246ASection 292BSection 40A(2)(b)Section 68

case on merits and has filed an application for admission of the additional evidence under Rule 29 of ITAT rules and prayed for admission of additional evidence and substantiated the submissions with the factual paper book.. Per Contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the transactions are not established with ... supported with the documentary evidences. The Ld.AR emphasized that the assessee is filling the 7 Tayani Holdings Pvt Ltd, Mumbai application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of ITAT rules to substantiate the share application money and unsecured loans which were not available earlier and could not produce

Testec Asia Limited, United Arab Emirates vs. The Deputy Director of Income Tax, Circle International Taxation, Vadodara

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

ITA 44/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.44/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2022-23 Testec Asia Limited The Dy.Director Of Income Tax बनाम/ United Arab Emirates Circle, International Taxation V/S. P.O. Box No.16799, Dubai, Vadodara- 390 007 United Arab Emirates – 999999 (Or) Villa 11, Street 5, Medows 1, Emirates Hill, United Arab Emirates – Not Listed 999999 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aajct 4035 A (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Virat Bhavsar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Virat Bhavsar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 205Section 250

additional evidence and placed reliance on the order of CIT(A). The AR also placed reliance on some judicial precedents justifying the admission of additional evidence. 6. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on records including additional evidence submitted by the assessee before us. The assessee ... other relevant details were provided to Citibank NA and that requests were made to correct the attribution of TDS credit. 6.1. The admission of additional evidence in appellate proceedings is governed by Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. Courts have consistently emphasised that the admission

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhpaur vs. Rbl Bank Ltd, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 657/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Assessee had also filed an application under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963 requesting the Hon’ble ITAT for admission of Additional Evidence which could not be filed during Assessment Proceedings/Penalty proceedings. The additional Evidence is Copy of the “Memorandum” dated 25/9/2013 issued

Saksham Samajik Utthan Avem Vikas Sansthan, Jaipur vs. The CIT, Exemption, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed, for statistical

ITA 760/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. K. L. Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G

light of the above, the Appellant humbly prays that the Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to: - Allow this application for the admission of additional evidence. - Take on record the new evidence as listed above. - Grant any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.” Saksham

Saksham Samajik Utthan Avem Vikas Sansthan, Jaipur vs. The CIT, Exemption, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed, for statistical

ITA 759/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. K. L. Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G

light of the above, the Appellant humbly prays that the Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to: - Allow this application for the admission of additional evidence. - Take on record the new evidence as listed above. - Grant any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.” Saksham

Saksham Samajik Utthan Avem Vikas Sansthan, Jaipur vs. The CIT, Exemption, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed, for statistical

ITA 758/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. K. L. Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G

light of the above, the Appellant humbly prays that the Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to: - Allow this application for the admission of additional evidence. - Take on record the new evidence as listed above. - Grant any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.” Saksham

Saksham Samajik Utthan Avem Vikas Sansthan, Jaipur vs. The CIT, Exemption, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed, for statistical

ITA 757/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. K. L. Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G

light of the above, the Appellant humbly prays that the Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to: - Allow this application for the admission of additional evidence. - Take on record the new evidence as listed above. - Grant any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.” Saksham

Income Tax Office, Ward-6(2), Jaipur vs. Medical Designs India Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 236/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Ratan Lal Goyal (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

sought remand report from the Id. AO. Ld. AO vide remand report dated 11.09.2023, (APB 84-91) raised objection regarding the admission of additional evidences solely on the ground that assessee was provided sufficient opportunity. However, Id. AO while raising the objections failed to acknowledge that fact that no notice ... 271F dt. 27.05.2019 was issued at the registered office of the assessee company (APB-1). Thus the admission of additional evidence u/r 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962 is within the prescribed law and same is also rightly confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) by accepting the evidence so produced

City Elevators Pvt. Ltd, Andheri vs. TDS Ward 1(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1429/MUM/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17 City Elevators Pvt. Ltd., Tds Ward-1(1)(4), 304/A Panchsheel Apts. Sirm.V. 416, 4Th Floor, Cumballa Hill Mtnl Vs. Road, Andheri West, Te Building, Peddar Road, Dr. Mumbai-400093. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaccc 8797 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Mrs. Pradnya R. Gholap, Sr. DR
Section 201Section 201(1)

filed an application for admission of additional assessee has filed an application for admission of additional assessee has filed an application for admission of additional evidences containing certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant evidences containing certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant evidences containing certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant

Keshavlal Chaturdas Patel, Mehsana vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Mehsana

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

ITA 667/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.667/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Keshavlal Chaturdas Patel The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 11, Anand Nagar Society Ward-2 V/S. Manav Ashram Mehsana Visnagar Road Mehsana – 384 001 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bihpp 3886 P (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divatia, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ashesh R. Rewar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashesh R. Rewar, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

assessee's knowledge, resulting in the non-compliance observed during the appellate proceedings. 4.1. The Departmental Representative (DR) did not object to admission of additional evidence and relied on the order of lower authorities. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the assessee, the orders of the lower