← 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

Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 51/AHD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, and Shri Parin Shah, Ars
Section 250(6)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

allowed.” 37. Before us, the ld.DR though relied on the order of the AO, he was unable to challenge in any way the admission of additional evidences on the incurrence of analytical and testing expenses by the ld.CIT(A). He was unable to controvert the fact noted

M/S. Bangalore University, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Exemptions Circle-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1040/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai S. & Sri Joseph Varghese, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, D.R
Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

purpose of adjudication as the action of the assessee is bonafide. 6. The assessee also filed additional evidences along with petition for admission of additional evidences. We also carefully gone through the petition for admission of additional evidences. In the interest of justice, these additional evidences are very much required

Sri Sravan Kumar Neela, Nalgonda vs. ACIT Central Circle 1, Kozhikode

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

ITA 899/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 132ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 69A

being assessable u/s. 56, i.e., as returned, or u/s. 69A, as assessed, with the tax rate being consequential. The plea for admission of additional evidence is not maintainable, both on facts and in law. We decide accordingly. 5. In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed. Order

Sri Uma Maheshwara Rao Chinni, Guntur vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Kozhikode

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

ITA 895/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 132ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 69A

being assessable u/s. 56, i.e., as returned, or u/s. 69A, as assessed, with the tax rate being consequential. The plea for admission of additional evidence is not maintainable, both on facts and in law. We decide accordingly. 5. In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed. Order

Rohit Vinat Gupta, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 3(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, ground no. 4 is dismissed

ITA 3718/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Mani & Prateek JainFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal (CIT- DR)
Section 132Section 69A

have considered the submission of the assessee and contention of the AO. At the outset, it is necessary to consider the issue of admission of additional evidences which has been objected by the AO. I have gone through the notice issued during the assessment proceedings. I observe that the assessee

Abalabba Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-12(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2949/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri M M Golvala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 57(2)Section 69Section 698Section 69B

offering Income from House Property by the assessee is much more than the said value. Therefore, the ld. AR prayed for the admission of additional evidence and deletion of the addition considering the evidences. 17. The ld. DR vehemently opposed the admission of additional evidence and supported the order

Yogesh Kotiyal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle Int Tax 2(1)2, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 391/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Preeti Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 244ASection 270ASection 5(2)(a)Section 6(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)Section 90

received the TRC of Australia issued by the Australia Taxation Office for TY 2019-20 and in this regard an application for admission of additional evidence was filed before the ld. DRP. 28. The undisputed facts are that:  The assessee is a NRI  The assessee received salary for services rendered

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Bharuch vs. M/S. Heubach Colour Pvt. Ltd., Ankleshwar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 110/SRT/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Sh. Milin Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

under:- "2. During the course of appellate proceeding, the AR of the assessee before your honour has filed an application u/s. 46A for admission of additional evidences along with written/submission paper book. Hence, as directed by your honour, the additional evidences/ submissions made by the AR of the assessee before

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Bharuch vs. M/S. Heubach Colour Pvt. Ltd., Ankleshwar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 3367/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Sh. Milin Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

under:- "2. During the course of appellate proceeding, the AR of the assessee before your honour has filed an application u/s. 46A for admission of additional evidences along with written/submission paper book. Hence, as directed by your honour, the additional evidences/ submissions made by the AR of the assessee before

Kumarasamy Marthandan Subramanian, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Chennai

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

ITA 633/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee filed petition under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 for admission of additional evidence that he has submitted the comparative quantity-wise and quality-wise detail i.e., price of each item. The ld.counsel for the assessee filed these details

Yards N Yields Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4378/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234ASection 37(1)Section 40

assessee. From the record it is also revealed that before learned CIT(A) the assessee had moved application under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidence on the ground that no proper opportunity was accorded by the AO. However, the prayer of the assessee for admission of additional evidence stood

Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 34, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1412/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1411 & 1412/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Income Tax, Circle -34, 15, Strand Road Kolkata - 700001 Kolkata [Pan : Aaajk0361L] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. M. Sundaram, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench : Both These Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre - Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 27/10/2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19 & Dt. 06/11/2023 For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19:- “1. Disallowance Of Rs.68,13,600 U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D(2)(Ii) Is Liable To Be Deleted For The Following Reasons Since The Undisputedly The Appellant Had Nil Exempt Income & That The Entire Investments Are Made In Port Related Strategic Entities Out Of Its Own Funds. A) As Duly Mentioned In Paragraph No.8.7 Of The Impugned Order, The Issue Of Whether The Explanation To Section 14A Inserted W.E.F. 01.04.2022 Is Prospective Or Retrospective Is Not Settled & Hon'Ble High Court Of Delhi Has Held It To Be Applicable Prospectively, Namely W.E.F. Ay 2022-23, Which Subsequent To The Subject Ay 2018-19. 2

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Sundaram, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 14ASection 250Section 41(1)

proceedings to examine the transactions under Section 41(1) of the Act. Considering the prayer of the ld. Counsel for the assessee for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income tax Rules and also considering the facts which prima facie suggests that there was no liability

Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 34, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1411/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1411 & 1412/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Income Tax, Circle -34, 15, Strand Road Kolkata - 700001 Kolkata [Pan : Aaajk0361L] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. M. Sundaram, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench : Both These Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre - Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 27/10/2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19 & Dt. 06/11/2023 For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19:- “1. Disallowance Of Rs.68,13,600 U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D(2)(Ii) Is Liable To Be Deleted For The Following Reasons Since The Undisputedly The Appellant Had Nil Exempt Income & That The Entire Investments Are Made In Port Related Strategic Entities Out Of Its Own Funds. A) As Duly Mentioned In Paragraph No.8.7 Of The Impugned Order, The Issue Of Whether The Explanation To Section 14A Inserted W.E.F. 01.04.2022 Is Prospective Or Retrospective Is Not Settled & Hon'Ble High Court Of Delhi Has Held It To Be Applicable Prospectively, Namely W.E.F. Ay 2022-23, Which Subsequent To The Subject Ay 2018-19. 2

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Sundaram, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 14ASection 250Section 41(1)

proceedings to examine the transactions under Section 41(1) of the Act. Considering the prayer of the ld. Counsel for the assessee for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income tax Rules and also considering the facts which prima facie suggests that there was no liability

Crm Services India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed with consequential effect

ITA 1519/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 254

assessee’s plea regarding adjustment in respect of royalty is concerned, we have duly considered the assessee’s application for admission of additional evidence which has been filed under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 and looking to the facts and circumstances, it is our considered

Crm Services India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed with consequential effect

ITA 1518/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 254

assessee’s plea regarding adjustment in respect of royalty is concerned, we have duly considered the assessee’s application for admission of additional evidence which has been filed under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 and looking to the facts and circumstances, it is our considered

Dushyantsinh Yadvendrasinh Chudasama, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(2), Vadodara

The appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 199/AHD/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarita Nos: 198 & 199/Ahd/2022 Asst. Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Shri Dushyantsinh The Dcit Yadvendrasinh Chudasama Vs Circle-1(2) R.S. No.175/11/2 Vadodara Valavav Salvi Timba Road, Savli, Vadodara -391 774, Gujarat Pan : Acrpc1888M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Kinjal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing: 27/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumarboth The Above Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee As Against Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 25.03.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)-Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Arising Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Relating To The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. Since Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals (Except Change In Figures), These Were Heard Together & The Same Are Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

inclined to take up the grounds taken by the assessee on merits. With regard to grounds taken by the assessee, regarding admission of Additional evidences, the assessee may file the same before the Ld CIT(A), who will decide about the admissibility of those evidences in accordance with Rule

Dushyantsinh Yadvendrasinh Chudasama, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(2), Vadodara

The appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 198/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarita Nos: 198 & 199/Ahd/2022 Asst. Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Shri Dushyantsinh The Dcit Yadvendrasinh Chudasama Vs Circle-1(2) R.S. No.175/11/2 Vadodara Valavav Salvi Timba Road, Savli, Vadodara -391 774, Gujarat Pan : Acrpc1888M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Kinjal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing: 27/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumarboth The Above Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee As Against Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 25.03.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)-Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Arising Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Relating To The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. Since Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals (Except Change In Figures), These Were Heard Together & The Same Are Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

inclined to take up the grounds taken by the assessee on merits. With regard to grounds taken by the assessee, regarding admission of Additional evidences, the assessee may file the same before the Ld CIT(A), who will decide about the admissibility of those evidences in accordance with Rule

Chander Mohan Bhati, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 163/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 24

Against order of Commissioner (Appeals), assessee filed appeal before Tribunal - It also moved application under rule 29 of Appellate Tribunal Rules. 1963 for admission of additional evidences - Whether since assessee had not made out any case that authorities below had decided case without giving sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence, requirement

Chander Mohan Bhati, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 162/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 24

Against order of Commissioner (Appeals), assessee filed appeal before Tribunal - It also moved application under rule 29 of Appellate Tribunal Rules. 1963 for admission of additional evidences - Whether since assessee had not made out any case that authorities below had decided case without giving sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence, requirement

Chander Mohan Bhati, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 161/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 24

Against order of Commissioner (Appeals), assessee filed appeal before Tribunal - It also moved application under rule 29 of Appellate Tribunal Rules. 1963 for admission of additional evidences - Whether since assessee had not made out any case that authorities below had decided case without giving sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence, requirement