← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bengaluru vs. Ms. John Distilleries Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

ITA 961/BANG/2023[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

submitted that the present applications are filed under Rule 29 r/w Rule 18(4) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1962 seeking admission of additional evidences in the above matter. 7.1 He submitted that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was initiated in the case ... sample basis, broken open few volumes of such book for each year for the period as above and producing the same for admission as additional evidence with a prayer to allow production of balance documents of the year on being convinced of the bona fide submission of the Appellant

John Developers, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 847/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

submitted that the present applications are filed under Rule 29 r/w Rule 18(4) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1962 seeking admission of additional evidences in the above matter. 7.1 He submitted that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was initiated in the case ... sample basis, broken open few volumes of such book for each year for the period as above and producing the same for admission as additional evidence with a prayer to allow production of balance documents of the year on being convinced of the bona fide submission of the Appellant

John Developers, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

ITA 846/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

submitted that the present applications are filed under Rule 29 r/w Rule 18(4) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1962 seeking admission of additional evidences in the above matter. 7.1 He submitted that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was initiated in the case ... sample basis, broken open few volumes of such book for each year for the period as above and producing the same for admission as additional evidence with a prayer to allow production of balance documents of the year on being convinced of the bona fide submission of the Appellant

John Developers, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 845/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

submitted that the present applications are filed under Rule 29 r/w Rule 18(4) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1962 seeking admission of additional evidences in the above matter. 7.1 He submitted that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was initiated in the case ... sample basis, broken open few volumes of such book for each year for the period as above and producing the same for admission as additional evidence with a prayer to allow production of balance documents of the year on being convinced of the bona fide submission of the Appellant

Mr. Paul Plathotathil John, Coorg vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 844/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

submitted that the present applications are filed under Rule 29 r/w Rule 18(4) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1962 seeking admission of additional evidences in the above matter. 7.1 He submitted that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was initiated in the case ... sample basis, broken open few volumes of such book for each year for the period as above and producing the same for admission as additional evidence with a prayer to allow production of balance documents of the year on being convinced of the bona fide submission of the Appellant

M/S. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

ITA 843/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

submitted that the present applications are filed under Rule 29 r/w Rule 18(4) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1962 seeking admission of additional evidences in the above matter. 7.1 He submitted that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was initiated in the case ... sample basis, broken open few volumes of such book for each year for the period as above and producing the same for admission as additional evidence with a prayer to allow production of balance documents of the year on being convinced of the bona fide submission of the Appellant

M/S. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

ITA 842/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

submitted that the present applications are filed under Rule 29 r/w Rule 18(4) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1962 seeking admission of additional evidences in the above matter. 7.1 He submitted that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was initiated in the case ... sample basis, broken open few volumes of such book for each year for the period as above and producing the same for admission as additional evidence with a prayer to allow production of balance documents of the year on being convinced of the bona fide submission of the Appellant

M/S. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 841/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

submitted that the present applications are filed under Rule 29 r/w Rule 18(4) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1962 seeking admission of additional evidences in the above matter. 7.1 He submitted that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was initiated in the case ... sample basis, broken open few volumes of such book for each year for the period as above and producing the same for admission as additional evidence with a prayer to allow production of balance documents of the year on being convinced of the bona fide submission of the Appellant

M/S. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 840/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

submitted that the present applications are filed under Rule 29 r/w Rule 18(4) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1962 seeking admission of additional evidences in the above matter. 7.1 He submitted that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was initiated in the case ... sample basis, broken open few volumes of such book for each year for the period as above and producing the same for admission as additional evidence with a prayer to allow production of balance documents of the year on being convinced of the bona fide submission of the Appellant

M/S. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 839/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

submitted that the present applications are filed under Rule 29 r/w Rule 18(4) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1962 seeking admission of additional evidences in the above matter. 7.1 He submitted that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was initiated in the case ... sample basis, broken open few volumes of such book for each year for the period as above and producing the same for admission as additional evidence with a prayer to allow production of balance documents of the year on being convinced of the bona fide submission of the Appellant

M/S. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 838/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

submitted that the present applications are filed under Rule 29 r/w Rule 18(4) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1962 seeking admission of additional evidences in the above matter. 7.1 He submitted that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was initiated in the case ... sample basis, broken open few volumes of such book for each year for the period as above and producing the same for admission as additional evidence with a prayer to allow production of balance documents of the year on being convinced of the bona fide submission of the Appellant

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(1), Bengaluru vs. Ms. John Distilleries Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1012/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

submitted that the present applications are filed under Rule 29 r/w Rule 18(4) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1962 seeking admission of additional evidences in the above matter. 7.1 He submitted that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was initiated in the case ... sample basis, broken open few volumes of such book for each year for the period as above and producing the same for admission as additional evidence with a prayer to allow production of balance documents of the year on being convinced of the bona fide submission of the Appellant

Kritika Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 36(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 172/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Shaantanu Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rishpal Bedi, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250

appeal, Learned Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that before the Learned CIT(A), the assessee though made an application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 dated 28.12.2023 appearing at pages 371 to 374 of the paper book filed before

M/S. S.S Sugar Engineers Private Limited, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as the term indicated above

ITA 1187/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Miss Ruchi RathodFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

fair 9 and reasonable and it does not call for any interference from our side. We also find that an application for admission of additional evidence was filed by the assessee on 30.05.2024. After perusing the said additional evidence which is a copy of an email dated 25.10.2023 sent

Photon Kathaas Production Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, TDS Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 512/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.511 & 512/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018) Photon Kathaas Production Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.19, Avenue Road, Tds, Ward 1(1) Nungambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aafcp 2805A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Raghav Menon, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () These Two Appeals Being Ita Nos.511-512/Chny/2024 Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of Even Date 29.12.2023 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Cit(A)’ In Short], Chennai-20 For The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Common Grounds Of Appeal In Both The Assessment Years, Therefore, For The Sake Of Brevity Grounds Of Appeal Filed In Ita No.511/Chny/2024 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Being Taken As Lead Case & Our Order Thereon Will Mutatis Mutandis Apply To Appeal For Ay 2017-18 Accordingly. Grounds Of Appeal Filed In Ita No.511-512/Chny/2024 Are Reproduced As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri. Raghav Menon, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT
Section 133Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

produce relevant documents like invoices issued in the name of the appellant, Bank statement of appellant. Ld.DR of revenue vehemently opposed the admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963. Ld.DR further submitted that if the additional evidence under Rule

Photon Kathaas Production Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, TDS Ward 1-(1), Chennai

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 511/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.511 & 512/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018) Photon Kathaas Production Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.19, Avenue Road, Tds, Ward 1(1) Nungambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aafcp 2805A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Raghav Menon, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () These Two Appeals Being Ita Nos.511-512/Chny/2024 Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of Even Date 29.12.2023 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Cit(A)’ In Short], Chennai-20 For The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Common Grounds Of Appeal In Both The Assessment Years, Therefore, For The Sake Of Brevity Grounds Of Appeal Filed In Ita No.511/Chny/2024 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Being Taken As Lead Case & Our Order Thereon Will Mutatis Mutandis Apply To Appeal For Ay 2017-18 Accordingly. Grounds Of Appeal Filed In Ita No.511-512/Chny/2024 Are Reproduced As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri. Raghav Menon, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT
Section 133Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

produce relevant documents like invoices issued in the name of the appellant, Bank statement of appellant. Ld.DR of revenue vehemently opposed the admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963. Ld.DR further submitted that if the additional evidence under Rule

Mamsa Co-Op Industrial Estate Ltd, Mumbai Central vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (A), Mumbai

ITA 1351/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Marlon RegoFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 80P

ground that the same were additional evidence which were not before the Assessing Officer and the Appellant had failed to move application for admission of additional evidence and provide cogent reasons why the same should be admitted. According to the CIT(A), since the Appellant had failed to make ... case for admission of additional evidence, the same details/documents were not taken into consideration by the CIT(A) and the appeal was dismissed. 11. Before us, it was it was contended by the Appellant that all the documents/details were filed before the Assessing Officer and the same were

Royal Swan Charitable Minority Trust, Nanded vs. ITO (Exemption), Nanded

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all the three AYs 2012-13,

ITA 1130/PUN/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 133ASection 142A(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

addition made is held to be applied on the objects of the trust, then the addition would be nullified. In the context of admission of additional evidence, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company

Royal Swan Charitable Minority Trust, Nanded vs. ITO (Exemption), Nanded

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all the three AYs 2012-13,

ITA 1129/PUN/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 133ASection 142A(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

addition made is held to be applied on the objects of the trust, then the addition would be nullified. In the context of admission of additional evidence, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company

Royal Swan Charitable Minority Trust, Nanded vs. ITO (Exemption), Nanded

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all the three AYs 2012-13,

ITA 1128/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 133ASection 142A(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

addition made is held to be applied on the objects of the trust, then the addition would be nullified. In the context of admission of additional evidence, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company