“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

Sobha Traders, Alappuzha vs. ITO Ward 4, Alappuzha

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 57/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dassobha Traders The Income Tax Officer Kacherry Junction, Ambalapuzha Ward – 2 Vs. Alappuzha 688561 Alappuzha [Pan:Acjfs8638K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bijumon Antony, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

with evidence, how we wonder could the levy of penalty, which is at the minimum sum of Rs.1.50 lacs, be faulted with? 3.2 Admission of additional evidence by way of a medical certificate dated 28.11.2022 by the assessee, adduced to substantiate the claim of the Managing Partner, Shri Unnikrishnan, facing

Anuj Kumar Singh, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward 1(1)(1), Meerut

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1434/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: The A.O, By Ignoring The Facts That The Statutory Notices Were Not Served Upon The Assessee During The Course Of Anuj Kumar Singh Vs. Ito

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

take cognizance of the purchase deed on a purely technical reason that assessee had not filed any application under Rule-46A seeking admission of additional evidence. Thus, it is patent and obvious that the subject addition on account of short term capital gain is only for the reason that

ITO Ward 2(2), Gurgaon vs. Kumudani Janghu, Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2405/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Him.

denovo adjudication in accordance with law. The ld. CIT(A) is also directed to take an independent judicious call with regard to the admission of additional evidences filed before him by the assessee. Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes for both the years

ITO Ward 2(2), Gurgaon vs. Kumudani Jhangu Prop Jyoti Associates, Gurugram

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2403/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Him.

Sagar Sanjeev Shetty, Mumbai vs. ACIT-Circle 25(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1360/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Sagarsanjeevshetty Vs. Acit-25(1), A/1202, Plot No. 24, Room No. 202, 2Nd Rdp4 Sweet Home Chs Floor, Kautilya Ltd, Svp Nagar, Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, Versova Mhada, G-Block, Bkc, Andheri, Bandra East, Mumbai-400053 Mumbai-400051. Pan/Gir No. : Celps8696R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Bharat, L. Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Nayanjyoti Nath, Sr.DR

Section 249Section 68

purpose of business and hence cannot be again taxed in the hands of the assessee. The assessee is filling the application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of ITAT rules with (i) Cashbook of sea prince bar and restaurant (ii) Bank statement of Indusind Bank (iii)sales Ledger

DCIT, Circle- 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Businessmatch Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, ITA number 2455/M/2023 for assessment year 2017 – 18 filed by the assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2455/MUM/2023[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2023

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri S Srinivasu, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

under section 68 of the income tax act. When the matter reached before the learned CIT – A the assessee made an application for admission of additional evidence in the form of confirmation of the party from assessment year 2014 – 15 and 2017 – 18 and Ledger account. The reason ... recorded the reasons which are not assailed by the revenue before us. Therefore, we do not have any reason to state that the admission of additional evidence by the learned CIT – A is not valid. Even otherwise on the merits of the case when the loan is not received during

ACIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Businessmatch Services (India) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, ITA number 2455/M/2023 for assessment year 2017 – 18 filed by the assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1136/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri S Srinivasu, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2241/AHD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2241/Ahd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Vodafone India Services बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle- Pvt. Ltd. 4(1)(2) Vs. Indiabulls Finance Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Room 1201, 12Th Floor, Tower-1, No.209, Pratyaksh Kar Senapati Bapat Road, Bhavan, Near Elphinstone (West), Polytechnic, Ambawadi, Mumbai-400013. Ahmedabad-380015. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz1849D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Fereshte Sethna (Adv) Revenue By: Letter Dated 11.10.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad Dated 31.08.2018, Arising Out Of The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Dated 05.12.2014 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. In The Several Grounds Raised In The Appeal, The Sole Grievance Of The Appellant Is Against The Action Of The Ao/Ld. Cit(A) In Not Allowing The Depreciation Claimed On Goodwill.

For Appellant: Ms. Fereshte Sethna (Adv)For Respondent: Letter dated 11.10.2023

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(15)(b)Section 92C

Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. his remand report dated 12.07.2018 (hereinafter “first remand report”) opposed the admission of additional evidences. In light of this remand report, the Ld. CIT(A) is noted to have rejected the prayer for admission of additional evidence. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed on merits

Ashwin Kapur, Delhi vs. ACIT-Circle Int Tax 2(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 474/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.474/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2020-21 बनाम Ashwin Kapur Acit D-4/4101, Vasant Kunj, Vs. Circle (Int. Tax) 2(1)(2) South West, Civic Centre, New Delhi. Minto Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aqapk9804E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 48

approx 5250 ft amount Rs.9.50 Lacs claimed on renovation is quite reasonable and justifiable. The Appellant requested before DRP-1 Delhi for admission of Additional Evidence in relation to Cost of Improvement in terms of Rule-9, Income-tax (Dispute Resolution Panel) Rules, 2009 in support of objections to proposed

Bhanu Teja Bade, Machilipatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 255/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.255/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Bhanu Teja Bade Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.2/451, Desaipeta Income Tax Machilipatnam Circle-1(1) [Pan : Bzipb9626D] Vijayawada (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Siva Ram Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

considered by the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee filed an affidavit before the Tribunal in support of the petition for admission of additional evidence. The Ld.AR pleaded before the Tribunal that the appeal may be 6 I.T.A. No.255/Viz/2023, A.Y. 2015-16 Bhanu Teja Bade, Machilipatmam remitted back to the file

Sheetal Suhas Ghugare, Mumbai vs. ITO 27(3)(3), Vashi Railway Station

ITA 2459/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Kanupriya Damor

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

deserves to be deleted 3. Despite the fact that the learned CIT(A) has not rejected your appellant's request for admission of additional evidence u/r 46A, the additional evidences furnished during the course of first appeal proceedings were not referred to the learned AO for his comments Your appellant ... should have referred the additional evidence to the learned AO when there was no specific rejection of appellant's request for admission of additional evidence.” The relevant facts in brief are that the Appellant, an individual did 3. not file return of income for the Assessment Year

Mumbai Shelter Housing Development Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2381/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Venugopal P. NairFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

seen in balance sheet u/s 68 ignoring various documents furnished during assessment stage and those furnished during appellate proceedings with a request for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A. 7. Reasons given by CIT(A) in confirming order of AO are wrong, insufficient and contrary to facts and evidence

Mumbai Shelter Housing Development Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-(1) 3, Mumbai

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

ITA 2380/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Venugopal P. NairFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

America Express Services India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee be considered allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3524/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: PendingITAT Delhi30 Nov 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2004-05 American Express Services India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Metropolitan, Saket, Circle-1(1), 7Th Floor, Office Block, New Delhi. District Centre, Saket, New Delhi – 110 017. Pan: Aabct0555D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao & Shri Parth, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)

Heard and perused the record. 3. It was pointed out by the ld. AR that an application for admission of additional evidences has been filed under Rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, the copy of which along with copies of the documents stands supplied ... matter will certainly have to be restored to the TPO and, accordingly, the arguments on the application of the appellant assessee for admission of additional evidences were heard. 4. The ld. counsel for the applicant-assessee submitted that in the present AY, being first year, the assessee had erroneously considered

Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Kachchadia, Vapi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Vapi

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 581/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Kachchadia, I.T.O. Ward-2, B-9/83, Near Ambaji Temple, Vapi. Vs. Haria Hospital Road, Gidc, Vapi (Gujarat)-396395. Pan No. Acppk 1953 R Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 254(1)Section 50C(2)

assessee has not contested the market value adopted by Assessing Officer despite granting opportunity by Valuation Officer. On the admission of additional evidence, the Assessing officer contended that neither he refused to admit such evidences nor the assessee prevented by sufficient cause for producing evidences in the course of assessment

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Nagpur vs. M/S Victrans Engineers, Nagpur

The appeal of the Revenue is ALLOWED FOR STATISTCIAL PURPOSES

ITA 8/NAG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Parth Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 08/Nag/2020 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dy. Cit, Circle -3, Nagpur . . . . . . .अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S M/S. Victrans Engineers, C/O. Swapan Datta, 16, Vidya Vihar Colony, Pratap Nagar, Nappur – 440 022. Pan: Aaafv6800F . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: None for AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Kailash Kanojiya [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 144Section 154Section 250Section 44A

that, in terms of sub-rule (2) of rule 46A (supra) it is for the Ld. CIT(A) to invariably record reasons for admission of additional evidence placed first time before him. Equally before rejecting to admit the same the first appellate authority before proceeding to adjudicate the matter, ITAT

Ajay Kumar Kanojia, Dubai(Uae) vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 275/RPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 275/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ajay Kumar Kanojia C/O. P.R Gupta & Co. A-233, Sector-19, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201 301 Pan: Aalpk4183B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Rai Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 203ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)

matter in appeal. 6 Ajay Kumar Kanojia Vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Raipur 5. The assessee has filed before me an application seeking admission of additional evidences a/w. liberty to place on record certain documents which could not be filed before the lower authorities, as under: (i) Mutual Fund statement

The Indian Missionary Movement, Kawardha vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Kawardha, Kawardha

In the result appeal for the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our observations

ITA 199/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 199/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year:2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Jain & R.B. Doshi, CA’sFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 253(5)Section 69A

Reliance on - Vishnu Kumar Sinha (HUF) v. ACIT - ITA no. 174/RPR/2018 (ITAT Raipur). 10. Ld. AR further submitted before us a request for admission of additional evidence under rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963. The same is extracted as under: 8 ITA 199/RPR/2022 The Indian Missionary Movement Date ... Before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur Request for admission of additional evidences u/r 29 of ITAT Rules, 1963 1. The appellant most respectfully submits this application u/r 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, requesting for admission of additional evidence in the present

Fr. Sauter Ag, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward International Tax 1(3)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal in ITA No

ITA 831/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13]

Section 112Section 234ASection 234BSection 48

void ab initio and therefore liable to be quashed. The following grounds are without prejudice to Ground No. 1. Ground No. 2: Non-admission of additional evidence 2.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the additional evidence filed ... find that the Ld. CIT(A) has decided this issue by observing as under:- “11.4.1. The AO has raised objection to the admission of additional evidence on the ground that as per Rule 46A, additional evidence may only be accepted if there were any exceptional circumstances which prevented the assessee

New Leaf Home P.Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-18(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2485/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 New Leaf Home P. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-18(2) House No. 352, New Delhi. Sector-21 D, Nit Faridabad, Near Jiva Public School, Faridabad, Haryana, Pin : 121001 Pan Aadcn7291C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anita Meena, Sr.DR

Section 68

therefore dismissed as not pressed. 7. The remaining grounds are adjudicated herein below: 8. Vide application dated 10.10.2022 the assessee sought permission for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules, 1963 which is reproduced below:- 10 October 2022 Before, Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ... Delhi In the matter of Leaf Homes Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 2485/Del/2018 Assessment year: 2014-15 Subject: PERMISSION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 29 OF ITAT RULES 1063. Hon'ble Sir(s), 1. The appellant named above seeks the permission of Hon'ble Bench to place on record