“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

Income Tax Office, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada vs. Harinadh Ananthaneni, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 168/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 168/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sri Harinadh Ananthaneni, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan: Ainpa 3860 B (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 28/Viz/2023 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 168/Viz/2023) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ananthaneni Harinadh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolavenu Village, Ward-2(3), Krishna District. Vijayawada. Pan: Ainpa 3860 B (""यथ"/ Respondent) (Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

argued at the time of hearing.” 4. 3. The only contention of the Revenue emanating from the grounds raised is with respect to admission of additional evidence by the Ld. CIT(A) ignoring the provisions of Rule 46A(2) and 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules ... cannot be treated as income in the hands of the assessee. 6. With respect to the grounds raised by the Revenue regarding the admission of additional evidence by the Ld.CIT(A) under Rule 46A(2) and 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, we find that Rule

Sandeep Kherada, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 610/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal (CA)For Respondent: MS Alka Gautam (CIT)(V.H)

Section 131Section 144

dated 12.03.2018 (APB 115- 117) contained the observations about books of accounts. In remand report dated 21.09.2016, ld.AO objected the admission of additional evidences on the ground that assessee could not furnish such documents and books of accounts during assessment proceedings. However, in remand report dated 12.03.2018, ld.AO has observed

Priyadarshani Construction, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3760/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble

Section 250Section 68Section 69A

hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee brought to our notice relevant facts of the case and filed additional evidences and prayed for admission of additional evidences. Ld.AR of the assessee prayed that these additional evidences go to the root of the matter and the same may be admitted and remitted

Diversey India Hygiene Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

Accordingly, the ground raised by the appellant is allowed

ITA 1243/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234CSection 250Section 80G

same into consideration holding that the same was in the nature of additional evidence and the Assessee had not furnished any application for admission of additional evidence. The CIT(A) also observed that the proof furnished by the Assessee were not verifiable. Being aggrieved, the Assessee carried the issue ... Assessing Officer and/or the Assessing Officer. Further, the CIT(A) was correct not considering the additional evidence as absent any application for admission of additional evidence the same could not have been considered. We have heard the rival contention and perused the material on record. It is admitted position that

Surinder Kumar Daima, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 63(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1848/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 57

Ground No.1 raised by the appellant does not succeed.” 4. Against this order, assessee filed appeal before us. The assessee has also sought admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. The said additional evidence is an Agreement of the assessee with the Indirapuram Habitat

City Petroleums, Sunam vs. ACIT, C.C., Patiala

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 71/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saldi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 69Section 69A

return of income which was not appreciated by the AO. Further, a prayer was made before the Ld. CIT(A) for admission of additional evidence by way of cash book as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in terms of lack of opportunity before the AO during the course

Super Dairy Farm., Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)., Hyderabad

ITA 1288/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1287 & 1288/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Super Dairy Farm, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1265/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14) The Assistant Vs. Super Dairy Farm, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 48

above dissection, we remit the matter to the file of ld.CIT(A) with a direction to the assessee to move appropriate application for admission of additional evidence before ld.CIT(A) in respect of documents now filed before us. The ld.CIT(A) may consider the application in accordance with

Super Dairy Farm., Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)., Hyderabad

ITA 1287/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 48

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)., Hyderabad vs. Super Dairy Farm., Hyderabad

ITA 1265/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 48

M/S. Shairu Gems Diamonds Pvt Ltd. Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2051/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit, M/S Shairu Gems Diamonds Pvt. Central Circle 2(1) Ltd. Room No.804, 8Th Floor, De-9012A, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Pratishtha Bhavan, Vs. G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Old Cgo Complex Annex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aatcs5148R Assessee By : Shri Harsh Kapadia & Ms. Ritu Punjabi, Adv Revenue By : Ms. Bhumika Patel, Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kapadia &For Respondent: Ms. Bhumika Patel, DR

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)

entire stock of diamonds was duly reconciled / reconcilable by the Appellant. 1.3 The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) further erred in rejecting the application for admission of additional evidences filed by the Appellant to support and substantiate its contentions. 1.4 Without prejudice, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) also erred in sustaining the addition ... restored to the file of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The learned CIT (A) may examine the issues of admission of additional evidence and decide issue on the merits afresh. 013. The ground no.2 is regarding addition of ₹13,48,058/- on account of alleged bogus salary expenses

M/S. West End Investment & Finance Counsultancy Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 1(4), Mumbai

ITA 2703/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm West End Investment & The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Consultancy Ltd Income Tax, Central Circle – 1 38, Second Floor, Bombay (4), (Room Number 902, Ninth Mutual Building, Dr D N Road Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Fort, Mumbai – 001 Cgo And, Chicago Road, Mumbai – 20 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacw 0973H

For Appellant: Shri Deepak TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule CIT DR

Section 143Section 144BSection 50Section 56

proper and sufficient opportunity of hearing is given to the appellant to the true value of the property, the appellant request for the admission of additional evidence if any, required in support of any of the grounds of appeal mentioned above. 03. The facts of the case are that assessee

Bhailalbhai Mafatlal Pujara, Mehsana vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Mehsana

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

ITA 885/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.885/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2017-2018 Bhailalbhai Mafatlal Pujara, Income Tax Officer, 100 Sivam Gate, Vs. Ward-5, Dayanand Complex, Mehsana. Becharaji, Mehsana-384210. Pan: Aetpp7146K

For Appellant: Shri Suchit Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K Mangla, Sr. DR

Section 44ASection 69A

comments on the additional evidence on the merit of the case. However, Ld. CIT(A), rejected the application of the assessee for the admission of additional evidence under rule 46A of income tax rules by observing as under: A.Y. 2017-18 3 8. Decision:I have carefully considered the facts ... power to the Ld. CIT(A) to admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee after recording the reason in writing for the admission of additional evidence. In other words, the Ld. CIT(A), was given power under subrule (2) of rule 46A of Income Tax Rule for the admission

Madan Mohan Mishra, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 795/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri S.L. JainFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

support of the submission that entire consideration has been paid. The assessee furnished the aforesaid documents by way of an application seeking admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules. Further, the assessee also referred to the letter dated 18/03/2011 issued by Mrs. Usha Umesh Mishra, forming

Dreamtech Constructions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 91/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 143(3)Section 68

assessee preferred an Appeal before the CIT(A). During the first appellate proceedings, the assessee filed an application for admission of additional evidence by producing the balance sheet of the share applicants from 2007-08 to 2012-13, M/s Dreamtech Vs. DCIT share application form, Form 2, Challan, bank statement

Dreamtech Constructions Pvt Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 90/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 143(3)Section 68

Garuda Marketing Associates, Thrissur vs. The ITO Ward 2(2), Thrissur

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

ITA 211/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Sri. Narayanan P Potty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)

either source-based or evidence- based, the two bases on which is income is brought to tax under the Act. 4.2 As regards admission of additional evidence, sure, no case is made out; the assessee not even contending, much less showing, of being constrained to produce the evidences ... seeks to adduce, at the earlier stages. That, no doubt relevant, may not oust the assessee’s case inasmuch as the admission of additional evidence at the second appellate stage is not referable to any right of the parties to produce the same but is dependent solely on the requirement

DCIT, Ghaziabad vs. M/S Mgi Infracon Pvt. Ltd., (Earlier M/S Bigmoon Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 3797/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakroborty, CIT-DR

Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

bank statements of investor. 9. The ld. CIT(A) called a remand report from the Assessing Officer who did not object for the admission of additional evidence. 10. On the contrary, in the remand report, the Assessing Officer mentioned that the addition u/s 68 of the Act has been made

DCIT, Ghaziabad vs. M/S Mgi Infracon Pvt. Ltd., (Earlier M/S Bigmoon Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 3795/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakroborty, CIT-DR

Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

M/S. Lifeline Medicare Hospitals Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Mumbai

In the result ground number 3 of the appeal is dismissed

ITA 74/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Income Tax Officer Vs. M/S Next Avenue Ventures Ward- 12(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai-400020 (Earlier Known As Kbj Ventures Pvt. Ltd.) 3Rd Floor, Raheja Chambers, Link Road Main Avenue, Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400 054 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagck8343R

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri S Srinivasu, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 68

because of sufficient cause in not furnishing the information. Thus, he asked the learned assessing officer to furnish the remand report on the admissible of additional evidence furnished and on the merits of those additional evidences. 013. The learned Assessing Officer submitted remand report on 21//2/2023 , He objected ... admission of additional evidence stating that assessee was given enough opportunities [ para 2 of Remand Report] However, the learned CIT (A) applying the provisions of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, admitted the evidence. 014. The learned Assessing Officer also commented on the merits of the additions by that remand

ITO 12(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Next Avenue Ventures Private Limited(Earlier Known As Kbj Ventures Private Limited), Mumbai

In the result ground number 3 of the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2420/MUM/2023[A.Y. 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2024

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri S Srinivasu, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 68