← 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

Venkateshwara Wires Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld. Ao As Well As Before The Ld. Cit(A) As The Documents Submitted Was Only In Support Of Confirmations & Other Documents Already Submitted & No New Documents Were Submitted. 2. The Assessee Craves Your Indulgence To Add Amend Or Alter All Or Any Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 801ASection 80I

this would amount to additional evidence under Rule 46 A which cannot be considered. The appellant has not provided any application for the admission of additional evidence during these proceedings. Also, the appellant has not submitted any evidence that these details were submitted before the A.O during the assessment proceedings ... assessee moved an application under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 30 Venkateshwara Wires Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 1963 for admission of additional evidence. The ld. AR of the assessee though stated to have submitted all the documents before the ld. CIT(A) and he has discussed

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Net 4 India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, in the terms indicated herein above

ITA 3657/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs M/S. Net 4 India Ltd., Circle-18(1), Ab-11, Community Centre, New Delhi. Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029. Pan-Aaact0291M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 29.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.09.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-42, New Delhi Dated 17.03.2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 14Section 145(3)

Rule) by ignoring finding of facts recorded by the AO in the remand by the AO in the remand report against the admission of additional evidence and without considering the fact that the case of the assessee was not covered under any exceptions as stipulated under Rule

Sri Rangarao Nadipally, Karimnagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Karimnagar

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

ITA 516/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2014-15 Sri Rangarao Nadipally Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karimnagar Circle – 1 Karimnagar Pan : Acbpn3816E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M Prudhvi Raj Appeared For Shri D.Sashank, Ld.Ar Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Ld.Dr 05.09.2024 Date Of Hearing: Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2024

For Appellant: Shri M Prudhvi Raj appeared for Shri D.Sashank, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Ld.DR

course of appellate proceedings which does not explain the case of the assessee. However, no petition has been filed by the assessee for admission of additional evidence justifying and explaining as to under which Clause of Rule 46A(1), the assessee’s case is covered

Hareshkumar Prakashbhai Chaudhari, Mehsana vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mehsana

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

ITA 582/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

parte order without giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has filed application for admission of additional evidences which was also not considered by the CIT(A). Therefore, the Ld. AR submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the file

Chhotagovinpur and Bagbera Drinking Water Supply Project Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Corp Ward 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1013/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1013/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. M/S.Chhotagovindpur & Bagbera- The Ito, Drinking Water – Corporate Ward-1(3), Supply Project Ltd., Chennai. New No.136, G.R.Tower 4Th Floor, Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aagcc 0433 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Viswanathan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh
Section 144Section 36(1)Section 43BSection 801A

dismissing the appeal on the ground that the assessee didn’t M/s.Chhotagovindpur & Bagbera Drinking Water Supply Project Ltd. :: 2 :: file application for admission of additional evidences during the course of appellate proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A), without explaining ‘as to why’ the additional evidences should be admitted under Rule ... relevant evidences before the AO and arbitrarily dismissed the appeal on hyper-technical grounds that assessee failed to file application for admission of additional evidences. Moreover, we note that the AO has passed best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act and has made the addition/disallowance as under: i) Difference

Rai Ispat Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Central Ward 5(4), Chennai

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

ITA 1728/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1728/Chny/2019 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2015-16 M/S.Rai Ispat Private Limited, Income Tax Officer, No. 6/13 Park Avenue, Central Ward-5(4), Kesavaperumalpuram, Chennai Chennai-600 028. [Pan: Aaacr1743C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B.Ramakrishnan, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri G.Suresh, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri G.Suresh, JCIT
Section 68

assesse relied upon decision of coordinate bench of ITAT,Patna in the case of Abhay kumar Shroff vs ITO 63 ITD 144 postulating admission of additional evidences at the 2nd appellate stage before the tribunal for serving substantial cause. 4.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light ... clear that the impugned addition had direct nexus with the non-availability of supporting evidences. Rule-29 of the ITAT rules empower admission of additional evidences in cases where substantial cause exists. We are of the view that in the case the addition made is for want of supporting evidences

Jagadeesan, Mani vs. Income Tax Officer (Int Tax )- Ward 3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 495/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am Jagadeesan Mani Ito (Int. Tax)-Ward 3(2)(1) Room No. 1627, 16Th Floor, P O Box No. 2606, Ruwi, Ruwi, Ruwi, Ruwi, 112, Oman Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kukreja/Punit ShahFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148ASection 69Section 69A

Calcutta) which on identical facts has held the assessment order to be illegal and unsustainable in law. The ld. AR prayed for admission of additional evidence as per Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 to explain the source of time deposit made by the assessee which addition has been ... which was unexplained by the assessee neither during the assessment proceeding nor before the Hon’ble DRP. The ld. DR opposed to the admission of additional evidence and without 4 Jagadeesan Mani vs. ITO (Int. Tax) prejudice has stated that if the additional evidence is admitted, the same

Tayyababi Abdul Raheman Sayyad, Latur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 Latur, Latur

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

ITA 431/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.429 To 431/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Tayyababi Abdul Raheman Vs The Income Tax Officer, Sayyad, Ward-2, Latur. Hamal Galli Narsinggirani, Latur – 413512. Pan: Cubps2682D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sharad A Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, All Dated 08.01.2024 For The A.Y.2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. All These Three Were Heard Together As Issue Involved Was Common. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Take Ita No.431/Pun/2024 For

Section 23Section 250Section 28Section 57

ld.AR : 2. The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) of the assessee submitted that interest earned by assessee is exempt. Ld.AR also filed application for admission of additional evidence. Ld.AR submitted that these documents could not be produced before the AO &ld.CIT(A) as these were received by the assessee after the assessment

Tayyababi Abdul Raheman Sayyad, Latur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4 Latur, Latur

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

ITA 430/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.429 To 431/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Tayyababi Abdul Raheman Vs The Income Tax Officer, Sayyad, Ward-2, Latur. Hamal Galli Narsinggirani, Latur – 413512. Pan: Cubps2682D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sharad A Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, All Dated 08.01.2024 For The A.Y.2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. All These Three Were Heard Together As Issue Involved Was Common. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Take Ita No.431/Pun/2024 For

Section 23Section 250Section 28Section 57

ld.AR : 2. The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) of the assessee submitted that interest earned by assessee is exempt. Ld.AR also filed application for admission of additional evidence. Ld.AR submitted that these documents could not be produced before the AO &ld.CIT(A) as these were received by the assessee after the assessment

Tayyababi Abdul Raheman Sayyad, Latur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4 Latur, Latur

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

ITA 429/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.429 To 431/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Tayyababi Abdul Raheman Vs The Income Tax Officer, Sayyad, Ward-2, Latur. Hamal Galli Narsinggirani, Latur – 413512. Pan: Cubps2682D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sharad A Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, All Dated 08.01.2024 For The A.Y.2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. All These Three Were Heard Together As Issue Involved Was Common. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Take Ita No.431/Pun/2024 For

Section 23Section 250Section 28Section 57

ld.AR : 2. The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) of the assessee submitted that interest earned by assessee is exempt. Ld.AR also filed application for admission of additional evidence. Ld.AR submitted that these documents could not be produced before the AO &ld.CIT(A) as these were received by the assessee after the assessment

Cravatex Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT -6(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 3440/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(vil)Section 37(1)

further argued that the assessee has uploaded during the appellate proceedings on 01.09.2023 under acknowledgement no. 22251301010923 requesting admission of additional evidence filed by the assessee before making the prayer dated 14.08.2023. 4. The Ld. AR has taken us to the page no. 97 and 98 of the paperbook ... therefore prayed that matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue of admission of additional evidence. . The Ld. DR on the other hand defended the order of the Ld. CIT(A) stating that the prayer for additional evidence was made in written

Sangita Gopalkrishan Agarwal, Pune vs. CIT(A), Pune

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

ITA 738/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.738/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sangita Gopalkrishan V The Commissioner Of Agarwal, S Income Tax (Appeal), A-2/1076, Sobha Carnation, Pune. Opp.Sai Service, Pune City, Pune, Kondhwa Bk, Maharashtra – 411048. Pan: Aewpa6704P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Shashikant Amdebar – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order U/Sec.250 Of Income Tax Act Passed By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)/Addl.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Dated 14/02/2024 For A.Y.2013-2014. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Sangita Gopalkrishan Agarwal [A]

Section 250

Capital for purchase of flat. AR filed copy of sanction letter issued by Tata Capital which clearly states Housing Loan. Ld.AR requested for admission of additional evidence. Submission of Ld.DR : 6. Ld.DR relied on the order of AO and First Appellate Authorities. Ld.DR submitted that the First Appellate authorities ... before the AO/ld.CIT(A). These documents are essential to decide the issue. We are of the opinion that there is valid reason for admission of Additional Evidence. Accordingly, we admit the additional evidence. 9.1 However, we are of the opinion that there was sufficient cause for non compliance before

Boopathi Mouliswaran, Coimbatore vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 506/CHNY/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.506/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Boopathi Mouliswaran, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 758, Dr. Radhakrishnan Road, Income, Tatabad, Non Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore 641 012. Coimbatore. [Pan: Ahrpm 2004Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Shrenik Chardia, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms Kavitha, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri Shrenik Chardia, C.AFor Respondent: Ms Kavitha, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

outset, the ld. Authorized Representative submitted a petition under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 for admission of additional evidence with regard to Sundry Creditors and contended as under:- ‘’7. However, the Petitioner was unable to file the relevant details/documents during the course of assessment ... period 1.04.2018 to 31.03.2019. (Enclosed in Paperbook at page 40)’’. 7. Per contra, ld. Addl. CIT –Departmental Representative opposed the petition for admission of additional evidence filed under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules 1963 on the addition of Sundry Creditors. 8. We have heard the rival

Rajaram Ahire, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -3(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2288/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Mrs. Naina ChaurasiaFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Pasale, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

National Faceless Appeal Centre from time to time in response to the various notices issued. Further, the assessee also filed an application seeking admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Rules. It appears that the learned CIT(A) sought remand report from the AO in respect

DCIT, Corporate Circle - 1(1), Chennai vs. M/S. Alliance Granimarmo Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

ITA 2579/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

same. Thus simply put the appellant Revenue has alleged that the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has violated provisions of Rule 46 A qua admission of additional evidence during appellate proceedings. 14.0 It is therefore imperative at this stage to examine legal stipulation governing rule 46A. ".....46A. Production of additional evidence before

Coonoor Cooperative Urbank Bank Limited, Coonoor vs. DCIT, Ooty

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA No

ITA 228/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.228/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-2015) Coonoor Co-Operative Urban Bank Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, No.15, Mount Road, Circle I, Coonoor. Ooty. [Pan: Aaaac 0793M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Miss N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Miss N.V. Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 194ASection 36Section 40

hereby confirmed and Ground No. 2 is dismissed’’. 5.1 Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before us. Before us, the assessee filed petition for admission of additional evidence, which runs into 1-68 pages which consists of bank statement as proof for payment of ex-gratia/bonus. To meet ... Before us, the Ld Counsel for the assessee has referred additional evidence viz, party wise breakup of interest expenses and prayed for admission of additional evidence as per Rule 29 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Per contra, the ld. Addl. CIT-DR objected to the admission of the petition

Padam Kumar Goyal, Tonk vs. ITO Ward-Tonk, Income Tax Department, Tonk

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

ITA 581/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Kataria (C.A)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

request in the appellate proceedings to demand that the matter to the assessing authority. The appellant did not furnish such details for admission of additional evidence as per Rule 46A and in such situation, the request to remand the case is not acceptable. The appellant is required to substantiate

Chheda Specialities Foods Private Limited, Kandivali West, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 12 (1)-4, Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate

ITA 2493/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri H M Bhatt
Section 143(3)

been rendered infructuous and therefore, Ground No.1 raised by the Appellant as well as the application 6 Assessment Year 2013-14 filed for admission of additional evidence is dismissed as being infructuous. 11. In result, in terms of paragraph 8 above, the appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed. Order

ITO 13(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Nirmit Mercantile Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 3638/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year: 2014-15 Ito 13(1)(1), Mumbai Nirmit Mercantile Private Limited

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, SR. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

verify the same. In the appellate order, we do not find any (1) reference to any application made by the Assessee for admission of additional evidence, (2) Correspondence with the ld. AO for comments on admission of such evidence, (3) any order admitting such additional evidence. Thus, there 8 Nirmit

Jitendra Balvantrai Desai, Vadodara vs. Duit, Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 576/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 576/Ahd/2024 िनधा%रण वष%/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Prashant Jitendra Desai, Dcit, Vs. Legal Heir Of Late Jitendra B. Circle 1(1)(1), Desai, 34, Earth Bungalows, Vadodara Akshar Chowk, Old Padra Road, Vadodara, Gujarat-390020 Pan: Acopd 0409 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा%(रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ar *+थ- की ओर से / Revenue By : Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22.08.2024 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 69A

records. The assessee, through his legal heir, submitted an application under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, seeking admission of additional evidence. The evidence included a summary of cash withdrawals and deposits for the period from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2017. The Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee ... Given their relevance, we admit the additional evidence in the interest of justice. 7. The Departmental Representative (DR) agreed to accept the admission of additional evidence and legal heir. 8. Before us, the AR of the assessee explained the details of cash withdrawals and deposits in the bank account