“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

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

Kesaram Chatararamji Choudhary, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(21)(1), 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 6556/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Naina ChaurasiaFor Respondent: 10/12/2025

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69Section 69A

assessee filed an he learned counsel for the assessee filed an he learned counsel for the assessee filed an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of application for admission of additional evidence under Rule

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3.3.1, Mumbai vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Solar Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5135/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishasst. Cit, Circle 3.3.1 Shapoorji Pallonji Solar Holdings Room No. 522, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. 41/44, Sp. Centre Minoo Desai Mumbai-400 020 Marg, Colaba, Mumbai-400 005 Pan/Gir No. Aagcp 3195 E (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Dharmesh Shah & Ms. Mitali Parekh Respondent By : Shri Arun Kranti Datta – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Captioned Appeal By The Revenue Arises Out Of Order Dated 29.07.2024, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi, Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2021-22. 2. There Is Delay Of Four Days In Filing The Appeal. After Considering The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Was Due To Reasonable Cause. Hence, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication On Merits. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: (I) "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Both The Assessing Officers In Their Remand Report Have Not Given Adverse Findings Against The Assessee On The Issue Of Long Term Capital Loss Carried Forward, When In Fact Both Of Them Have Categoricaly Disagreed With The Submissions Made By The Assessee."

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kranti Datta – CIT DR

under: (i) Notice u/s 250 was issued on 13.06.2023. (ii) The appellant filed its submissions on 20.06.2023. (iii) The appellant filed application for admission of additional evidence on 20.06.2023. (iv) A remand report was called for from the AO on 08.08.2023. (v) The AO issued letter dated

Vrahatakar Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Amletha, Amletha vs. ITO-1, Ratlam

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 379/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 80P

YEAR: 2017-18 Vrahatakar Sahakari Sanstha Vs ITO-1, Maryadit Amletha Ratlam, (M.P) Amletha, Namli, Ratlam (M.P.) PAN: AAAAV2749) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PRAYER OF ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES 1. It is submitted that we are enclosing here with Interest Certificate of Rs. 29,58,916/- Certificate No. 415 Dated

Satara Zilla Dak Karmachari Sahakari Pathsanstha, Near Suruchi Banglow, Shukrawar Peth, Satara vs. Assessing Officer Ward 2, Aaykar Bhawan, Manjunath Manor, Pawai Naka, Satara

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

ITA 2829/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2829/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Satara Zilla Dak Karmachari Vs. Ito, National E- Sahakari Pathsanstha, Assessment Centre, 117/B, Near Suruchi Delhi. Banglow, Shukrawar Peth, Satara- 415002. Pan : Aapas2980K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajkumar Doshi Revenue By : Shri Shashank Ojha (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026 : Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Manish Borad, Am: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 24.09.2025 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 144 R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2018-19 Framed On 12.04.2021 By The Ito, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi. 2. The Effective Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Is Against The Disallowance Of Deduction Of Rs.43,54,979/- Claimed U/S 80P Of The Act. In The Grounds Of Appeal, The Assessee Also Stated That In Its Own Case For A.Y. 2020-21, Ld. Cit(A) Has Allowed The Deduction U/S 80P Of The Act. Further, The Request Has Been Made

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha (Virtual)

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

allowed the deduction u/s 80P of the Act. Further, the request has been made 2 for admission of additional evidences, if any, required in support of above grounds of appeal. 3. With the assistance of both the sides, it is noticed that the appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC

Ali Fazal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer TDS Ward 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, with the above directions

ITA 7430/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarali Fazal Income Tax Bungalow No.4, Udadhi Officer Tds Ward Tarang Society, Juhu Tara Vs. 1(1)(1) Road, Juhu, Mumbai Room No. 413, 4Th 400049 Floor, Cumbala Hill Mtnl Te Building, Peddar Road, Dr G Deshmukh Marg, Cumbana Hill Mumbai – 400026 Pan/Gir No. Aampf8506G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashish Thakurdesai & Shri Aditya Desai Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2026

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 234ESection 250

During the course of hearing before us, the learned Authorised Representative(AR) of the assessee submitted a written application seeking admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. 4 ALI FASAL 7. It was submitted that the assessee had inadvertently failed to deduct ... Officer was requested to verify the same and delete the fee levied. 13. The learned Departmental Representative, when confronted with the application for admission of additional evidence and the documents filed therewith, raised no objection to the admission of the same.We have considered the rival submissions, perused the orders

ACIT, Chennai vs. Svaryu Energy Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1491/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 14A

unexplained investments of Rs. 22.91 Crores. There is no discussion in the impugned order on the application moved by the assessee company for admission of additional evidence in terms of provisions of Rule-46A of the Page - 5 - of 7 ITA No.1154 & 1491/Chny/2025 Income Tax Rules 1962. In view

Svaryu Energy Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Central 3.4, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1154/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Hasbro Sa, Switzerland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax), Circle 1(1)(1), Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 2842/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 199Section 250

stated in the application is as under: - “The present application has been filed under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules for admission of additional evidence in the above-mentioned appeal coming up for hearing before your Honors on 14 January 2026. The present appeal was filed against the order dated ... Delhi ITAT in the case of ACIT vs. NIIT Technologies Ltd. (ITA No. 5491 & 5491/bel/2013 & ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013/ on the question of admissibility of additional evidence filed before the ITAT, wherein it was held as follows: 9 Hasbro SA, Switzerland “24.1 The Hon. Jurisdictional High Coud in the case

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. K G Buildwell Private Limited, Delhi

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

ITA 3598/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

admitting the additional evidences submitted by the assessee under Rule 46A of the 1.T. Act, 1961 despite the fact that the admission of additional evidences was vehemently denied by the AO as the assessee did not meet any of the conditions laid down in Rule 46A and despite providing

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-1, Lucknow, Aayakar Bhawan, Ashok Marg vs. M/S Ashray Ventures Private Limited, Lucknow

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

ITA 644/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

after allowing sufficient opportunities and after proper services of notices. Therefore, during the course of appeal proceedings, the ld. AO had opposed the admission of additional evidence as the assessee did not fulfil the conditions laid down under Rule 46A. However, the ld. CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence without ... through notice server. In view of these facts, ld. Sr. DR pointed out that the conditions laid down in Rule 46A for the admission of additional evidence were not satisfied, but the ld. CIT(A) had still gone ahead and admitted the additional evidence without pointing out where

Manish Bhavanji Bheda, Mumbai vs. DCIT 20(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7252/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharymanish Bhavanjibheda Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Room No. 25, Vishwas Tax, Circle 20(1), Room No. 305, Piramal Niwas No. 9, Acharya Chambers, Dr. S. S. Rao Road, Lalbaug, Donde Marg, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400012. Pan/Gir No:Aekpb1041E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 250Section 68

find that there is no specific finding recorded by the ld. CIT(A) either accepting or rejecting the assessee’s application seeking admission of additional evidences. We, therefore, find that matter deserve to be set aside to the file of ld. CIT(A) to consider the assessee application moved under

Rama Sivaraman, Mumbai vs. AO Ward 3(2), Thane

ITA 6947/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Mr. Rajeev N. LFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri

Section 147

immovable properties in support of its contentions as additional evidence before the Tribunal. In this regard, reliance was placed upon the application for admission of additional evidence forming part of the paper-book filed by the Assessee. 8. Per Contra, the Learned Departmental Representative supported the order passed ... Assessee. During the course of hearing the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee had referred to the Submission, dated 20/08/2021, and application seeking admission of additional evidence accompanied by agreement relating to purchase/sale of property. We note that the Learned CIT(A) appeal has noted that the Assessing Officer

Rama Sivaraman, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(2), Mumbai

ITA 6946/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Mr. Rajeev N. LFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri

Section 147

Sheth Realtors, Mumbai vs. ACIT-CC-7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5947/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Arun Khodpiashri Sandeep Singh Karhailsheth Realtors Vasant Oasis, Site Office, Upper Basement, Cts No.345A 1 To 3, 345A 5 To 6, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri (East), ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400059 Pan: Aavfa3975F

For Appellant: Dr. K ShivramFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250

parties with whom the assessee had transactions are similar to those in the preceding year. By referring to the application seeking admission of additional evidence, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that ledger confirmations, PAN details of suppliers and their addresses in respect of each of the parties are available

Radhakishan, Khategaon, Dewas vs. ITO-2, Dewas

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 678/IND/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246A

Copy of CIT Appeal Form 35 along with Ack. Dt: 13-01-2018 Filed with Appeal Copy of our Prayer for Admission of Additional Evidences Before CIT Dt: 27-02- 2018 7 13 Copy of our Written Submission Before CIT Dt: 27-02-2018 8-9 14 Copy of Sale

Veenus Jewellars, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Warangal

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

ITA 1373/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar AVES, Sr. DR

very root of the matter. Accordingly, the assessee has filed the said documents before this Tribunal along with a petition for admission of additional evidence. The Ld. AR, therefore, prayed that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity be granted to the assessee by setting aside the matter

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Omax Autos Ltd, Gurgaon

ITA 3055/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jha, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 43(6)Section 45

submissions made by the assessee, no adverse remark/ comments were offered on sale made toHEMA. The assessing officer only objected to the admission of additional evidence for not having been filed during assessment proceedings. Relevant extract of the remand report issued on this issue is reproduced as under: “COMMENTS ... duly reduced from the WDV of the block. Though the assessing officer held that no discrepancy was found, however objected to the admission of additional evidence for not having been filed during assessment proceedings. 7. In regard to write off bad debt pertaining to diesel locomotive work Varanasithe assessing officer

Mukesh Vishwanath Kadam, Nipani vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1 Nipani, Nipani

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

ITA 370/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. No.370/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18 ) Mukesh Vishwanath Kadam, Vs I.T.O-Ward-1, Nemchand Building, 1767, Jatratvesh Dhor Galli, . 747,Ashoknagar, Nipani,Belgaum-591237, Nippani-591237, Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan .No.Dvqpk9533N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

A.Y.2017-18, the financial statements with supporting evidences could not be filed in the proceedings and now the assesse is filling the application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of ITAT rules along with financial statements, cash book and general ledger placed at S.no

ITO 19.3.1, Mumbai vs. Raashi Sawhney, Mumbai

ITA 7091/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 69

found to be satisfied by the Ld. CIT(A). We also couldn’t find any specific findings of the ld CIT(A) for admission of additional evidences. During the course of hearing, the Ld.AR couldn’t controvert the aforesaid factual position as emanating from the impugned appellate order or brought ... notice any documentation which proves otherwise. We thus, find that the whole procedure so laid down under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidence has been completely side-stepped and not adhered to by the Ld.CIT(A) for reasons best known to him. In our considered opinion, the same

ITO 19.3.1, Mumbai vs. Raashi Sawhney, Mumbai

ITA 7090/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 69