← 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

Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 05, New Delhi

In the result, the application of the assessee for limited purpose

ITA 6996/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: FixedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT-DR
Section 40A(2)

Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 14.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 30.05.2024 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This application for admission of additional evidence by the assessee is preferred in the ITA No. 6996/DEL/2019 against the order of the DRP-2, New Delhi dated 30.08.2017 pertaining ... assessee drew our attention to an application under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 dated NIL filed for admission of additional evidence in connection with Ground No. 5, 6 and 7 of the Grounds of appeal. 3. The provisions contained in Rule 29 of the Income

Bhumika Mahesh Parwani, Ahmedabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 629/AHD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2020-21 Bhumika Mahesh Parwani, Income Tax Officer Sadhu Vaswani Mansion, Vs Ward 1(3)(1), Mirghawad, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380002 Gujarat Pan: Aljpp2059A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac) [Hereinafter Referred As “Cit(A)”], Dated 01.08.2023, For The Assessment Year 2020-21, Wherein The Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred As “Ao”) As Per The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As "The Act".

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)

clear and unambiguous, and any receipt of property without adequate consideration should be taxed as income. She also objected to admission of additional evidence. In the interest of justice such additional evidence is admitted. Bhumika Mahesh Parwani vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2020-21 5 11. We have heard the rival

Titan Company Limited 9Earstwhile Known As Titan Industries Limited), Krishnagiri vs. ACIT Ltu 1, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 518/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

depreciation on trademark. In the paper-book, the assessee has filed an application u/r 29 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 for admission of additional evidences which is supported by the affidavit of Managing Director of assessee company. By way of this application, the assessee seeks production of additional

Titan Company Limited 9Earstwhile Known As Titan Industries Limited), Krishnagiri vs. ACIT Ltu 1, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 507/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

depreciation on trademark. In the paper-book, the assessee has filed an application u/r 29 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 for admission of additional evidences which is supported by the affidavit of Managing Director of assessee company. By way of this application, the assessee seeks production of additional

Titan Company Limited 9Earstwhile Known As Titan Industries Limited), Krishnagiri vs. ACIT Ltu 1, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 506/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

depreciation on trademark. In the paper-book, the assessee has filed an application u/r 29 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 for admission of additional evidences which is supported by the affidavit of Managing Director of assessee company. By way of this application, the assessee seeks production of additional

Titan Company Limited 9Earstwhile Known As Titan Industries Limited), Krishnagiri vs. ACIT Ltu 1, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 505/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

depreciation on trademark. In the paper-book, the assessee has filed an application u/r 29 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 for admission of additional evidences which is supported by the affidavit of Managing Director of assessee company. By way of this application, the assessee seeks production of additional

Vasantkumar Kantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Unit, Delhi

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

ITA 498/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawali T A. No. 498/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2020-21) Vasntkumar Kantilal Shah Vs Nfac, Delhi New Delhi-110001. 812, Bombay Market . Apartment, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400034. Pan/Gir No. Adeps9808D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 56Section 57Section 68

heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The crux of the disputed issue is in respect of admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the I T Rules which could not be filed for various reasons before the Assessing officer and the same was rejected

World of Shalom Restaurant Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. The Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

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

ITA 1123/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royworld Of Shalon Restaurants Vs. Ito, Pvt. Ltd, Ward-13(3), N-18, 1St Floor, N. Block Market, Delhi Greater Kailash, Part-1, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcj0174C

For Appellant: Shri Yudhisthir Mehtani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Koatch, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

assessee under Rule 46A, Ld. CIT(A) rejected submissions and the additional evidences by observing as under:- “In the petition filed for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A dated 21/01/2024, at Para-4, the appellant has stated that the appellant was unable to reconcile the sale and purchase transactions

Srinivas Reddy Saddipalli, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 460/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.460/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Srinivas Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Saddipalli Ward 4(3) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Conps1185P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Helen Ruby Jesindha,Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/05/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Helen Ruby Jesindha,DR
Section 144Section 69Section 69A

Srinivas Reddy Saddipalli 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee referring to the petition filed for admission of additional evidences submitted that the assessee has filed certain additional evidences including the details of transactions carried through ME-SEVA (Govt.Citizen) and also submitted relevant bank statement to prove that the assessee

Sini Noushad, Thrissur vs. The ITO, Ward 1(3), Thrissur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 252/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cochin28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Sa No. 144/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sini Noushad The Income Tax Officer Poovathumkiadavil House Ward - 1(3), Thrissur Kara Post, Peethamaballur Vs. Kathiyalam, Thrissur 608671 [Pan: Emrps6227J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Padmanathan K.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144A

pray, could that be faulted with? Before us, again, the assessee has not made out any case for remission by seeking admission of additional evidences. That is, commits the same ‘mistake’ that she has before the Revenue authorities. The burden to prove one’s return, and the claims preferred thereby

Sunita Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 2(2)(3), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 3775/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sunita Tyagi, Vs Ito, R-7/120, Raj Nagar, Ward-2(2)(3), Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh-201002. Pan-Aaupt3785H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sahil Sharma, Adv & Shri Sanjay Parashar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.05.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi Dated 30.11.2023 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 148Section 151

right perspective. He submitted that the assessee had filed written submission before Ld.CIT(A) and an application dated 12.04.2021 was filed for admission of additional evidences. He further submitted that the assessment could not have been re-opened as the satisfaction is borrowed. He submitted that merely on the basis ... lower authorities have grossly erred in making the addition, the same deserves to be deleted. In support to the contention that application seeking admission of additional evidences was filed, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has taken us through Paper Book Page 24 and also various pages which have been filed

Shashikant Ramswaroop Chamadia, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12, Pune

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 486/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshaliनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shashikant Ramswaroop Chamadia Vs. Dcit, Sr No.31/2/9, North Koregaon Park, Circle-12, Near Ganga Heritage, Pune Koregaon Park, Pune – 411001 Pan : Aanpc8379H Appellant Respondent

Section 250Section 57

submits in light 3 Shashikant Ramswaroop Chamadia of index attached with the paper book that the assessee had duly filed his application seeking admission of additional evidence under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules dated 23.11.2023 before the learned CIT(A) which has neither been considered. Faced with

Pure Devotion Foundation, Jaipur vs. CIT(E), Jaipur

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

ITA 298/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 May 2024

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

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 8

directed to grant permanent registration u/s 12AB of the Act.” 6. The ld. AR of the assessee also filed an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, the content of the application reads as under :- “With reference to above, it is to submit

Ircon International Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Special Range-4, Delhi

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

ITA 922/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.922/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Ircon International Limited Acit C-4, District Centre, Saket, Vs. Special Range-4, Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aaac10684H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 43B

disallowance of employees share of Provident Fund contribution for the month of December, 2016. Ld. Counsel submits that assessee filed petition for admission of additional evidence in the form of notification issued by Provident Fund Organization dated 12.01.2017, wherein the Competent Authority under the Provident Fund Act allowed five days

Svetlana Gorodinskaia, Patiala vs. ACIT, CC, Patiala

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 202/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 69A

following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant both on account of admission of additional evidence as submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) and also on merits of the case. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) having considered

Shahid Qureshi, Ratlam vs. CIT (Appeal), NFAC

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

ITA 417/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishahid Qureshi Ito-1 17, Purohit Ji Ka Was, Ratlam Vs. Ratlam (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ecops1305G Assessee By Shri Kaid Kangsawala, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22.05.2024 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

facts of the case not appreciate meat supplier contact no. and address given and conform the Ld. AO order. 3• Request for Admission of Additional Evidence Namly Trading Account, Profit & Loss Account & Balance Sheet along with the purchase Voucher from mandi i.e. Pashu Panjiyan fees receipt paid to karyalai gram ... before the CIT(A) but could not succeed. 3. Before the tribunal Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for admission of additional evidences which contains balance sheet and profit and loss account as well as vouchers regarding the purchase made by the assessee from Animals hats

M/S Corner Contractors P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 277/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Us Following Effective Grounds Have Been Raised:-

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 40

dated 26/06/2020 stating that same was for renewal of subscription for which no TDS was required to be deducted. The petition for admission of additional evidences reads as under:- “2. Before the CIT(A), the appellant had requested to grant opportunity to provide the details required while disposing the appeal

Sanjay Jain, New Delhi vs. PCIT (Central) -3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals preferred by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1587/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: The Bench: - “For A.Y. 2013-14

Section 153ASection 263

above mentioned documents will qualify as additional evidence in terms of Rule 29 of ITAT Rule. 4. Without prejudice to above objection against admission of additional evidence, if Hon’ble bench is of considered view that above discussed documents are required to be taken into consideration to enable

DCIT, Circle-13(1), New Delhi vs. Janpath Ventures Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 9015/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Sunny Mittal, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

admission of the additional evidences by the CIT(A) owing to repeated non compliances before the AO. Without prejudice such objections on admission of additional evidences, the AO in a very brief and cryptic or summary report also asserted that even if such additional evidences are taken on record, provisions ... such as bank statements and confirmation and allowed the opportunity so provided, to lapse. The CIT(A) has not recorded any reason on admission of additional evidences; (c) Mere production of bank statement of the applicants and a formal confirmation thereof filed before CIT(A) by way of additional evidence

DCIT Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai vs. Itd Cementation India Limited, Mumbai

ITA 2090/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 80Section 86

Page 1 ITA Nos. 1400 & 2090/Mum/2023 ITD Cementation India Ltd; A.Y. 2017-18 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C