← 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

Iris Realty LLP, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly-allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4129/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 4129/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & S.A. No. 142/Chny/2025 [In Ita No. 4129/Chny/2025] M/S. Iris Realty Llp, The Deputy Commissioner (Successor To Iris Realty Vs. Of Income Tax, Pvt.Ltd.,) Non-Corporate Circle 3(1), 11, Kakani Towers, Chennai. 15, Khader Nawaz Khan Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aagfi 9722F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 68

Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for admission of additional evidences. The Ld.AR submitted that the relevant details were furnished by the assessee company during the course of assessment proceedings two days before ... have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Ld.AR for the assessee has filed a petition for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 on 30.12.2025. The additional evidences that are sought to be admitted are as follows

Afsha Shamim Ahmed Khan, Nashik vs. The ITO Ward-1(3), Nashik

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

ITA 2858/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2858/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Afsha Shamim Ahmed Khan, V The Income Tax Officer, 11, Paradise Plaza, Opposite S Ward-1(3), Nashik. Alone Point, Hotel Shingada Talao, Nashik – 422001. Pan: Azmpk3812B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand – Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 07/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2010-11 Dated 20.03.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The Act, Dated 11.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 2(14)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

deed. Ld.AR further submitted that without considering these documents, Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A) has passed the orders. Ld.AR filed a petition for admission of additional evidence. 5. In this case, it is a fact that Assessee before ld.CIT(A) had submitted that impugned property belongs to three persons, hence

Muthukrishnan, Cuddalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Cuddalore

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

ITA 2615/CHNY/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2615/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Muthukrishnan, The Income Tax Officer, 74, Pillayar Koil Street, Vs. Ward 1, Sipcot, Cuddalore Cuddalore – 607 005. Pan: Avmpm 4855E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. R. Hemalatha, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2026

For Appellant: Ms. R. Hemalatha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 144Section 250

additional evidences under 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The Ld.AR submitted that since the assessee had failed to file petition for admission of additional evidences, the FAA had not considered the details and documents furnished before him. The Ld.AR further submitted that the assessment has also been completed ... perused the materials on record. Before the FAA, the assessee has produced certain details and documents but failed to file the petition for admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules. Therefore, the FAA had dismissed the appeal of the assessee without considering the additional evidences