“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

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

ITA 1400/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2024AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Jangid, CIT DR &

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” BENCH

Monica Sachdewa, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-1(4), Ghaziabad

ITA 303/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Monica Sachdewa Vs. Ito C/O 516, Laxmideep Ward- 1 (4) Building, District Centre Ghaziabad Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi, Delhi-110092 Pan No.Baxps9034A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Shamyak Jain, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Anshul, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2024 Order Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As “Nfac”] Vide Order Dated 30.11.2023 Pertaining To A.Y. 2012-13 & Arises Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 13.11.2019 Under Section 144 Read With 147 Of The Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’].

Section 144

both the sides. 3. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated on the issue of admission of additional evidences filed before them without passing any speaking order. It was prayed that given an opportunity to entire material would be submitted before

Dreamz Infrastructure, Amravati vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 48/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 68

dismissed the appeal of the assessee without considering the additional evidences on the ground that the assessee has not filed the petition for admission of additional evidences. The learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to Page–4 of the assessment order and submitted that the assessee ... filed any details before the Assessing Officer and even before the learned CIT(A). Even the assessee has not filed any petition for admission of additional evidences and, hence, the learned CIT(A) has rightly passed the order in accordance with law. 7. We have heard the arguments of rival

The Vidarbha Region Life Insurance Corporation Employees Co Op Society Ltd, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Nagpur

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

ITA 419/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Aniruddha GhudeFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

However, as verified from the submissions made by the assessee, it is noticed that he has not filed any application with regard to admission of additional evidence. Further, in Column No. 12.1, it is stated that "List of Members, Details of Deposits, Details of Loan and other required The Vidarbha

Amalgam Foods Limited, Kochi vs. The DCIT, Circle-1, Alappuzha

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 561/COCH/2022[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Amalgam Foods Limited Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Alappuzha Amalgam House, Bristow Road, Vs. Willingdon Island, Kochi-682 002 [Pan:Aabca 8283D] (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : None Respondent By : Smt. J. M. Jamuna Devi Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2024 : 14.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Bench: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee, Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department [Cit(A)], Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 26.12.2019, For Assessment Year (Ay) 2001-2002. 2. None Appeared For & On Behalf Of The Assessee-Appellant When The Appeal Was Called Out For Hearing. Taking Note Of The Request Dated 05.02.2024 By Sri R. Srinivasan, Ca, The Learned Counsel For The Assessee, That His Personal Appearance May Be Dispensed With & The Matter Decided After Considering Written Submissions, Enclosed Along With, The Hearing In The Matter Was Proceeded With.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. J. M. Jamuna Devi

Section 143(3)Section 254

order in the relevant part stands reproduced by the Tribunal in it’s order dated 27/11/2018. Before the Tribunal, the assessee pleaded for admission of additional evidence, claiming the same to be going to the root of the matter inasmuch as the loss incurred was on account of repayment

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-I, Kanpur vs. Shri Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal, Mumbai

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

ITA 442/LKW/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Cit V. Shri Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal Central Circle-I 2601, Glenridege Kanpur Hiranandani Gardens Powai, Mumbai Pan:Aaopj1739K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Smt. Namita S Pandey, Cit(Dr) Respondent By: None Date Of Hearing: 13 05 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 05 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Namita S Pandey, CIT(DR)For Respondent: None

Section 250(4)

during the course of survey. Before the ld. CIT(A), assessee had produced additional evidence. As regards the objection by the Revenue regarding admission of additional evidence in violation of rule 46A of the Rules, we find that prior to admission of the additional evidence

Mangaldeep Multistate Urban Co.Op.Cr. Soc. Ltd., Kolkatta vs. ACIT - CC- 2 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 2150/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Prasad KulkarniFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal

Section 13Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 68

raised in assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 11. On merits, during the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) filed an application seeking admission of additional evidence duly supported by an affidavit of the Chairman of the assessee society. It is the claim of the assessee that the cash deposited

Mangaldeep Multistate Urban Co.Op.Cr. Soc. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - CC- 2 (1), Mumbai

ITA 2149/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Prasad KulkarniFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH

Mangaldeep Multistate Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 2138/MUM/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Prasad KulkarniFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal

Section 13Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 68

A.C.I.T. - 11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Sahara Q Gold Mart Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 6333/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 46ASection 68

unexplained cash credit solely depending on the remand report of the Assessing Officer. 5. The root cause for this grievance is the admission of additional evidences by the Ld. CIT(A) which the revenue claims to be in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. 6. We have given ... because the Ld. CIT(A) has not mentioned in so many words in the body of the Appellate Order the cause for the admission of additional evidences would not make the Appellate Order non-est or erroneous to be set-aside. We have mentioned the assessment history elsewhere which show

A.C.I.T. - 11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 6332/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 46ASection 68

Ramesh Kumar Saini, Bhopal vs. ITO-3(2), Bhopal

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

ITA 481/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Indore09 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniramesh Kumar Saini Ito-3(2) 6/1 Ranthambore Complex Bhopal Vs. Zone 2 Mp Nagar Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Dijps0764K Assessee By Shri Saksham Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09 .05.2024

Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 69

impugned order ex-parte. 3. Before the Tribunal the assessee has filed an application for raising additional grounds of appeal as well as admission of additional evidences as per Rule 18 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963. The additional grounds sought to be raised by the assesse

Pankaj Kumar Kasera, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 46(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5898/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshasstt. Yr: 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 147

filed an appeal before the CIT(A). 4.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted an application under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidences. The copy of documents filed along with the application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 are placed at Pages

ITO Non Corporate Ward 1(1), Cochin vs. Sri. Babu Chandrathil George, Cochin

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed on the foregoing terms

ITA 64/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalthe Income Tax Officer Babu Chandrathil George Non Corporate Ward 1(1) 32/1173 Chandrathil House Kochi Vs. Civle Line Road, Palarivattom Kochi 682025 [Pan: Agzpg7680D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Ms. Divya Ravindran, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)

that, aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 3. Before us, the Revenue’s stand, apart from on merits, was qua admission of additional evidence in first appeal by the ld. CIT(A), exhibiting a distance of 2.87 kms. and 3.02 kms. from two different points on the subject ... ought to be preferred. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 We shall address the aspect of admission of additional evidence first. Without doubt, the ld. CIT(A) has not issued any finding qua r. 46A and, therefore, his order is, qua admission

M/S Payyavoor Service Co-Op Bank Limited, Kannur vs. ITO Ward -3, Kannur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes and it’s stay application dismissed

ITA 945/COCH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalsa No. 72/Coch/2022 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Payyavoor Service Co-Op. Income Tax Officer Bank Ltd. Ward - 3, Kannur Vs. Payyavoor, Kannur 670633 [Pan: Aacap5073F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar C., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 80P

hearing to explain the difficulty in providing the relevant information, as indeed to plead the case. He would conclude with a prayer for admission of additional evidence and remittance back to the AO. Smt. Devi, the ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, submitted that the assessee had been allowed

Computer Modelling Group Limited, Canada vs. ACIT International Taxation Circle 1(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

ITA 2091/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

Canada (“India-Canada DTAA”) whichever is more beneficial at the option of the assessee. Vide written submission dated 12.10.2022, assessee filed application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (the “Rules”) and written submission which have been reproduced

Computer Modelling Group Limited, Canada vs. DCIT Circle International Taxation 1(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

ITA 2090/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

Computer Modelling Group Limited, Canada vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2)(1), Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

ITA 2305/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

Associated Teckno Plastic Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 3(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 179/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 11. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed application under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidences. The ld. CIT(A) after obtaining the remand report from the Assessing Officer and after obtaining the rejoinder from the assessee held that ... appeal.” the ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee could not qualify within the ambit of Rule 46A(1) and refused the admission of additional evidences. 12. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 13. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record

Sanjeev Mittal, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Circle- II, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7454/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(3)Section 68

view of these facts this addition made by the AO is confirmed.” 12. Dissatisfied, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging admission of additional evidence by the Ld. CIT(A); deletion of addition of Rs.1.47 crore under section 68 of the Act; deletion of addition