← 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

Vijaykumar Shankarlal Malpani, Jalgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Jalgaon

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

ITA 997/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.997/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vijaykumar Shankarlal Vs The Income Tax Officer, Malpani, Ward-1(3), Jalgaon. Plot No.25, Sadguru Nagar, Meharun, Jalgoan – 425001. Maharashtra. Pan: Aftpm0800N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nemin Shah - Ar Revenue By Shari Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 20/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Act, Dated 11.03.2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) – Nfac Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs.10,92,448/- Vijaykumar Shankarlal Malpani [A]

Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

mainly in the cash. The assessee has duly explained entire cash deposits and hence addition is not sustainable. Ld.AR filed application for admission of Additional Evidence, along with copy of certificate issued by Bank. Ld.AR submitted that Bank certified that Assessee had deposited only Rs.3,72,500/- of SBN Notes

Shivram Bairwa, Rajgarh Dausa vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO

ITA 801/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gogra, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 147Section 234A

1 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, 'SMC' JAIPUR श्री संदीप गोसाई

Om Prakash Sharma HUF, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4 (1), Jaipur

ITA 414/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 144Section 147Section 151(1)Section 271(1)(b)

circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT has grossly erred in approving the action of ld. AO of rejecting application of assessee for admission of additional evidences. It is hereby prayed to hold the action of Ld. AO has invalid & against the principal of natural justice. 8. The appellant craves

Om Prakash Sharma HUF, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(1), Jaipur

ITA 413/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 144Section 147Section 151(1)Section 271(1)(b)

circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT has grossly erred in approving the action of ld. AO of rejecting application of assessee for admission of additional evidences. It is hereby prayed to hold the action of Ld. AO has invalid & against the principal of natural justice. 8. The appellant craves

Lexicon Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT2.2.1, Mumbai

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

ITA 497/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, SR. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 68

case of Mr. Mayur Bhatra vs. ACIT in ITA No.7586/Del/2019 decided on 28.11.2022 has claimed that filing of separate application for admission of additional evidence is not a mandatory condition for admission of additional evidence and therefore the Ld. Commissioner ought to have considered the additional evidence filed

Hosahalli Jodinarasappa Lakshminarayana, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1218/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Hosahalli Jodinarasappa Lakshminarayana, Vs. Ito, Asst. Director Pension Ground Floor, V V Tower, Ward – 3(3)(2), Podium Block, Dr. Ambedkar Veethi, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Adipl 5182 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2024

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 250Section 69

bank statements and also filed a petition under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter called the Rules), for admission of additional evidence. The additional evidence that was filed was confirmation and supporting affidavit of the assessee’s son stating therein the date on which amounts were received ... filed before the FAA, the notices issued from the Office of the AO and the FAA, the detailed statement / bank accounts, petition for admission of additional evidence along with annexures before the FAA, etc. Learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the Addl/JCIT(A). 7. The learned Standing Counsel supported

Mayur Vasant Patel, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 27(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 3136/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mayur Vasant Patel, The Acit Circle (27)(2), 11, Gangotri Chs Ltd., It-Office, Vashi Railway Station Near Maneklal Estate, Vs. Commercial Complex, Ghatkopar (W), Navi Mumbai-400703. Mumbai-400086. Pan No. Azcpp 4925 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mrs. Mahita Nair, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Madhavi Panchal

facts and merits of the case, the appellant cr 9. On the facts and merits of the case, the appellant craves for admission of additional evidences in the interest of natural justice and admission of additional evidences in the interest of natural justice and admission of additional evidences

Modest and Parsons International Private Limited, Mumbai Maharashtra vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(2)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai Maharashtra

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2018-19

ITA 1510/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Anant PaiFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CITDR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

under normal provisions of the Act. 7. During the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A), the assessee filed an application seeking admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”). Upon receipt of the aforesaid application, the learned CIT(A) sought the remand ... appeal. Thus, the learned AR submitted that the learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the application filed by the assessee seeking admission of additional evidence. 9. Having considered the submissions of both sides and perusal of the material available on record, we are of the considered view that the learned

Pragati Power Corporation Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 20(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1617/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 145(2)Section 32Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 43ASection 46ASection 80I

loan agreement with Power Finance Corporation for Bawana Plant. d). These documents were necessary to render substantial justice to the parties. Rather admission of additional evidence would have enabled the CIT(A) to dispose the appeal in a fair and efficient manner. In CIT vs Virgin Securities & Credits

Falcon Gold House Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1547/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhrifalcon Gold House Pvt Vs. Ito Ward-4(2)(1), Aayakar Bhavan Ltd, Mk Road, 65/67 Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai -400020. Shop No. 6, 1St Floor, Mumbai – 400002. Pan/Gir No. Aabcf7527M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Ruby Srivastava.Ar Revenue By Ms. Rajeshwari Menon.Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 12.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 13.08.2024 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: “ The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 144 & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

transactions are not supported with the documentary evidences and passed the ex parte order. The assessee is filling the application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of ITAT rules with the Audited financial statements, Bank account statement, Ledger Accounts and supporting information in respect of fixed deposits with

Power Cube Electro Contorls Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward, 7(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No 3085/Mum/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3085/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Yogendra T Wakare(Sr. DR)
Section 144Section 250

hence, there was no reason to make any disallowance in respect of the loss claimed by the assessee. 7] The assesseerequests for admission of additional evidence in support of its case. 8] The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal

Satyavathi Golkonda, Machilipatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Machilipatnam

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

ITA 219/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 219/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Satyavathi Golkonda, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mig-102, Old Aphb Colony, Aayakar Bhavan, Paraspet, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, Andhra Pradesh – 521001. Andhra Pradesh-521001. Pan: Attpg1361J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri K. Siva Ram Kumar, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 08/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri K. Siva Ram Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not referring the appellant’s humble petition for admission of additional evidence, as per Ru-46A, Income Tax Rules, 1962 enclosed with additional evidence annexed to Form-35 to the jurisdictional AO before dismissal of the appeal

Trimurti Pawan Pratisthan Versus, Ahmednagar vs. DCIT, Exem-Circle-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 51/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra KarkhanisFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

mess by the assessee for the students. 8. Having considered the details filed by the assessee by way of an application seeking admission of additional evidence and perusal of the orders passed by the lower authorities, we find that no notice was issued to the assessee to examine the purpose

Mr Abhisheek Ambalal Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4799/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalmr. Abhishek Ambalal Vs. Ito, Ward 19(1)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Jain, Bandra (E), Flat No. 704 M Wing, Mumbai-400051. 7Th Floor, Panchsheel Garden Building, Kandivali (W), Mumbai -400067. Pan/Gir No. Aecpj8567R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By Shri Nishit Gandhi.Ar Respondent By Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 12.08.2024 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: “ The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 57Section 68

Ld.AR highlighted that, in the appellate proceedings the assessee has filed an application under rule 46A of the Income Tax rules 1962 for admission of additional evidence placed at page101&102 of the paper book and the same was overlooked by the CIT(A). Therefore the Ld.AR prayed

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Hsbc Electronic Data Processing India Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1632/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 115Section 115JSection 251(1)(a)Section 37(1)Section 41(1)

outset Ld. AR during the course of argument had submitted party wise details of provision made for doubtful debts without application for admission of additional evidence supported by any affidavit. The admission of these documents at this stage after lapse of 10 years is not justified and hence cannot

Vikram Purohit, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-7(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 227/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 148

from the records of the Company. The assessee may kindly be allowed to adduce these documents as additional evidence. An application for admission of additional evidence is being filed separately for your Honor’s kind consideration. As regards non submission of any documentary evidence in support of additional exemptions

Shanana Riyaz Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO-41(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2921/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Shyam AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 50C

with necessary supporting documents/evidences in support of its claim. The learned AR further submitted that the assessee also filed an application for seeking admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 (“the Rules”) before the learned CIT(A). It was further submitted that in response

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

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

ITA 1033/MUM/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawallumis Biotech Pvt Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Circle -7(1)(1), Room No.130, 1St Floor, 501, Arun Chambers, Ayakar Bhavan, Tardeo, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400034. Mumbai -400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacl1066G (अपीऱाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hitesh P. Shah.Ar Respondent By Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 31.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 01.08.2024 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: “ The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi/Cit(A), Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Hon. Cit(A) Ought To Have Appreciated The Fact That The Appellant Could Not Represent Its Case Due To Circumstances Beyond Its Control. 2 The Hon. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Disregarding The Fact That The Accountant Had Made Inadvertent Mistake In Claiming Deduction U/S.35(2Aa).

Section 35

Ld.AR emphasized that the assessee has submitted the details as called for by the appellate authorities. The assessee is filling the application for admission of additional evidences to substantiate the claim of weighted deduction u/sec 35(2AB) of the act which could not be furnished in the course of proceedings

The Panchmahals Dist. Co. Op. Bank Ltd., Godhra vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 675/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.675/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Panchmahals Dist. Co- The Ito Op.Bank Ltd. बनाम/ Ward-3(1)(2), Prabha Road Vadodara V/S. Dahod Highway Godhra – 389 001 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaajt 0268 P (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 14/08/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 29/12/2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income The Panchmahals Dist. Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 69A

copies of the documents. The Ld.CIT(A) also reproduced the remand report of the AO. In the remand report, the AO objected to admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1963. The assessee in its rebuttal to remand report submitted that they have not submitted ... additional evidence must be considered if a remand report has been requested. This judgment highlights the procedural aspects of Rule 46A regarding the admission of additional evidence before the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals). It underscores the importance of recording reasons for admitting such evidence and ensuring that the AO is given

Samarjit Singh Chabra, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 14(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1646/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एसएस िव"ने" रिव