← 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

Rajesh Lakhamshi Nisar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 32(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1773/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalerajesh Lakhmshi Nisar, Vs. Ito-Ward 32(3)(1), 1404, Rite Galaxy, Kautilya Bhavan, Sodawala Lane, Bkc,Bandra(E), Borivali (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai- 400092. Pan/Gir No. : Adnpn2986L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Ajay R. Singh & Shri.Akshay Pawar.Ar Respondent By : Ms. Shakuntala.N.Shet.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A), Delhi Passed U/Sec143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Ajay R. Singh and Shri.Akshay Pawar.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Shakuntala.N.Shet.DR

were sold in F.Y 2013-14.Further, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has a good case on merits and has filed an application for admission of additional evidences Under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.The Ld.AR substantiated the submissions with the paper book and judicial decisions and prayed ... facts and relied on the Honble High Court of Delhi decision on the same scrip. Whereas the assessee has filed the application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of ITAT rules with ITR for A.Y.2012-13 & ITR for A.Y.2013-14 along with the computation of total income, balance sheet