← 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

Mafaji Umedaji Jat, Deesa vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Palanpur

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

ITA 940/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.940/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Mafaji Umedaji Jat The Income Tax Officer At Rampura बनाम/ Ward-1 Po Rampura, Tal.Deesa Palanpur 385 001 V/S. Banaskantha – 385 535 Dist. Banaskantha (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Akipj 4846 K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ….. ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, Ars Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 29/09/2023 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” In Short], Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 24/03/2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 147 R.W.S.144 Read With Mafaji Umedaji Jat Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68

time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” 5.1. During the course of hearing before us, the assessee submitted an application for admission of additional evidence under rule 29 of ITAT Rules, 1963. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee is an agriculturist and not well educated

Adm Agro Industries Kota & Akola Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 51/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roym/S. Adm Agro Industries Kota & Vs. Dcit, Circle 1 (1), Akola Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Third Floor, Vatika Professional Point, Golf Course Extension Road, Sector – 66, Gurgaon – 122 018 (Haryana). (Pan : Aabcs9646L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate Shri Utkarsh Kr. Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Amisha Gupt, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Order : 10.07.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-I, New Delhi Dated 05.11.2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That, In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer ('Ao') Dated 30.12.2017 U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act,1961 ('The Act'), As Upheld By Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ('Cit(A)') Dated 05.11.2019 & Also The Additions

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in rejecting application for admission of additional evidence u/ Rule 46A moved by the Appellant, which contained MBP on the basis of which Valuation Report dated 09.09.2014 was prepared. The said

Sulekha.Com New Media Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT TDS Circle 3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1325/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1322, 1323, 1324 & 1325/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-2022) Sulekha.Com New Media Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, 2Nd Floor Campus, Tds Circle 3(1) 1A Rmz Millenia Business Park, Chennai. 143, Dr. Mgr Main Road, Perungudi, Kandanchavadi, Chennai 600 096. [Pan: Aadcm 6938R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. V. Ravichandran, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Bunch Of Four Appeals Being Ita Nos.1322-1325/Chny/2023 Filed By The Assessee Sulekha.Com New India Private Limited Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of Even Date 27.09.2023 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of 2 Ita Nos.1322-1325/Chny/2023

For Appellant: Shri. V. Ravichandran, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT
Section 194JSection 201(1)

before both the lower authorities assessee was not adequately heard or given chance to produce relevant documents. 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

Sulekha.Com New Media Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT TDS Circle 3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1324/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1322, 1323, 1324 & 1325/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-2022) Sulekha.Com New Media Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, 2Nd Floor Campus, Tds Circle 3(1) 1A Rmz Millenia Business Park, Chennai. 143, Dr. Mgr Main Road, Perungudi, Kandanchavadi, Chennai 600 096. [Pan: Aadcm 6938R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. V. Ravichandran, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Bunch Of Four Appeals Being Ita Nos.1322-1325/Chny/2023 Filed By The Assessee Sulekha.Com New India Private Limited Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of Even Date 27.09.2023 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of 2 Ita Nos.1322-1325/Chny/2023

For Appellant: Shri. V. Ravichandran, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT
Section 194JSection 201(1)

before both the lower authorities assessee was not adequately heard or given chance to produce relevant documents. 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

Sulekha.Com New Media Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT TDS Circle 3(1) Chennai, Chennai

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

ITA 1323/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1322, 1323, 1324 & 1325/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-2022) Sulekha.Com New Media Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, 2Nd Floor Campus, Tds Circle 3(1) 1A Rmz Millenia Business Park, Chennai. 143, Dr. Mgr Main Road, Perungudi, Kandanchavadi, Chennai 600 096. [Pan: Aadcm 6938R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. V. Ravichandran, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Bunch Of Four Appeals Being Ita Nos.1322-1325/Chny/2023 Filed By The Assessee Sulekha.Com New India Private Limited Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of Even Date 27.09.2023 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of 2 Ita Nos.1322-1325/Chny/2023

For Appellant: Shri. V. Ravichandran, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT
Section 194JSection 201(1)

before both the lower authorities assessee was not adequately heard or given chance to produce relevant documents. 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

Sulekha.Com New Media Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT TDS Circle 3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1322/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1322, 1323, 1324 & 1325/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-2022) Sulekha.Com New Media Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, 2Nd Floor Campus, Tds Circle 3(1) 1A Rmz Millenia Business Park, Chennai. 143, Dr. Mgr Main Road, Perungudi, Kandanchavadi, Chennai 600 096. [Pan: Aadcm 6938R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. V. Ravichandran, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Bunch Of Four Appeals Being Ita Nos.1322-1325/Chny/2023 Filed By The Assessee Sulekha.Com New India Private Limited Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of Even Date 27.09.2023 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of 2 Ita Nos.1322-1325/Chny/2023

For Appellant: Shri. V. Ravichandran, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT
Section 194JSection 201(1)

before both the lower authorities assessee was not adequately heard or given chance to produce relevant documents. 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