← 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

Arise Commercial (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-Ward - 3(2), New Delhi

ITA 9235/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaarise Commercial (P) Ltd. Vs. Acit Circle, Khasra No. 42/29, Ward3(2), Landmark Near Jai Bharat Room No. 381, Dharma Kanta C.R. Building, Village, Main Gt I.P.Estate, Karnal Road, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi-110002 Pan : Aalca7264L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

said that the case of the appellant falls in any of the clauses mentioned in Rule 46A. The application of the appellant for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A does not fulfill the conditions of Rule 46A. In view of it, the application under Rule 46A for admission

Sarda Devi Chechani, Udaipur vs. ITO TDS, Udaipur

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

ITA 127/JODH/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur23 Aug 2023AY 2013-14
Section 206CSection 5

case the said Form 27C was not furnished to the AO during the proceedings u/s 206C(6A), she may file a petition for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of IT Rules along with justification for admission of the same. However, despite affording five opportunities, the appellant neither furnished ... show that the relevant Form 27C was submitted to the AO during the proceedings u/s 206C(6A) nor furnished a petition for admission of additional evidence. In view of this, Form 27C issued by the buyer on 05.04.2018 which was furnished by the appellant during the appellate proceedings and which

Sarda Devi Chechani, Udaipur vs. ITO TDS, Udaipu

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

ITA 126/JODH/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur23 Aug 2023AY 2012-13
Section 206CSection 5

case the said Form 27C was not furnished to the AO during the proceedings u/s 206C(6A), she may file a petition for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of IT Rules along with justification for admission of the same. However, despite affording five opportunities, the appellant neither furnished ... show that the relevant Form 27C was submitted to the AO during the proceedings u/s 206C(6A) nor furnished a petition for admission of additional evidence. In view of this, Form 27C issued by the buyer on 05.04.2018 which was furnished by the appellant during the appellate proceedings and which

Sarda Devi Chechani, Udaipur vs. ITO TDS, Udaipur

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

ITA 125/JODH/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur23 Aug 2023AY 2011-12
Section 206CSection 5

case the said Form 27C was not furnished to the AO during the proceedings u/s 206C(6A), she may file a petition for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of IT Rules along with justification for admission of the same. However, despite affording five opportunities, the appellant neither furnished ... show that the relevant Form 27C was submitted to the AO during the proceedings u/s 206C(6A) nor furnished a petition for admission of additional evidence. In view of this, Form 27C issued by the buyer on 05.04.2018 which was furnished by the appellant during the appellate proceedings and which

Chandan Bhuillar, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle International Taxation-1(1)(2), New Delhi

Accordingly, the ground no. 1, 2 and 3 are allowed and appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2338/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Chandan Bhuillar Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 22, Gauri Apartments, Tax Rajesh Pilot Lane, Central Int. Tax-1(1)(2), New Delhi-110057 New Delhi Pan : Aelpb7507E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C

finding, there is application dated 08.04.2022 (duly stamped as received) which was filed before DRP, for the specific purpose of admission of additional evidence. Reasons for filing additional evidence are given in detail, and the evidence itself is tabulated. 7.2 He next submitted that at PB 51 there are reason

Dinesh Kumar Dixit, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 167/RPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.167/Rpr/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dinesh Kumar Dixit Vs Income Tax Officer 1, Dixit Bhawan, K.K. Road Ward-3(4) Moudhapara, Raipur-492 001 (Cg) Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Actpd 0023H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारितीती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Prafulla Pendse, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr-Dr सुनवाई ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/08/2023 घोषणाणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 20.03.2023, Arose On The Issues Raised Against The Order Of Assessing Officer Framed U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 27.11.2019. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That The Order Is Bad In Law As Well As On Facts As The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao In Making Addition Of Rs.96,43,971/- Under The Income Tax Act, 1961Contrary To The Provisions Of Income Tax Act. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining Addition Of Rs.70,31,100/- In Respect Of Alleged Cash Deposits In Bank Account During The Period Of Demonetization, When The Same Is Same At Variance With The Actual Figures Recorded In The Books Of Accounts.

For Appellant: Shri Prafulla Pendse, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, SR-DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44ASection 68

assessee at the very beginning of the hearing has submitted an application for admission of additional evidence with respect to the present appeal. It was the submission of the Ld. AR that the assessee’s case could not be represented properly before the Ld. AO as well as before ... counsel, therefore, the assessee’s contentions are accepted and the additional evidences submitted before us are permitted to be placed on records. On admission of additional evidences which are to be used by the assessee to substantiate his claims but the same were never produced before the revenue authorities

Kmi Business Technologies Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1399/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115JSection 36(1)(vii)

additional evidence is not any fresh claim but to substantiate further details already submitted before the CIT(A). Accordingly, the Ld.AR prayed for admission of additional evidence. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, relied on the order of CIT(A). 6. We heard the parties and perused the materials

Bhargav Bharatbhai Pandya, Surat vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 2(1)(3), Surat

In the result, ground No

ITA 354/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Bhargav Bharatbhai Pandya, I.T.O., 61, Shubham Row House, Near Ward-2(1)(3), Vs. Sarasswati School, Honey Park Surat. Road, Adajan, Surat-395009. Pan No. Bcwpp 1537 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 56(2)(x)Section 68

fact or seeking any comment from the Assessing Officer on such confirmation, rejected the same by taking view that no such prayer for admission of additional evidence was filed. Moreover, the ld. CIT(A) changed the nature of addition without giving any show cause notice. The Assessing Officer made addition

Manishkumar Kanubhai Kachchhi, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(2), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 417/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Manishkumar Kanubhai Kachchhi, I.T.O. C-101, Silver Nest, Near Siler Ward -2(3)2, Vs. Chowk, Yogi Chock To Puna Road, Surat Punagam, Surat. Pan No. Anypk 5830 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 69

bank account is sale proceeds of his bossiness. The ld AR for the assessee submits that he has also filed application of admissions of additional evidence under Rule 29 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The ld AR for the assessee submits that his application for admissions of additional evidence ... either under section 139 or in response to notice under section 148. The assessee does not deserve any leniency and the application for admission of additional evidence as well as appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed. 5. In alternative submissions, the ld Sr DR for the revenue

Sh. Subash Chander Sehgal, Moga vs. Income Tax Officer. Ward - 2, Moga

In the result, the subject appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 76/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Mohit Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 68

impugned order, it is revealed that the ld. CIT(A) has rejected the assessee’s explanation and application filed under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidence merely stating as deserved to be rejected without giving any reason for rejection of the additional evidence in view of the provisions ... Rule 46A of the ITAT Rule 1963. In our view, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have rebutted the admission of additional evidence being not covered under the four exceptions provided under Rule 46A of the ITAT Rule 1963 for non- admission of the additional evidence filed by the assessee

Sh. Subash Chander Sehagl, Moga vs. Income Tax Officer Ward. -2, Moga

In the result, the subject appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 75/ASR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Mohit Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 68

impugned order, it is revealed that the ld. CIT(A) has rejected the assessee’s explanation and application filed under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidence merely stating as deserved to be rejected without giving any reason for rejection of the additional evidence in view of the provisions ... Rule 46A of the ITAT Rule 1963. In our view, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have rebutted the admission of additional evidence being not covered under the four exceptions provided under Rule 46A of the ITAT Rule 1963 for non- admission of the additional evidence filed by the assessee

Sh. Subash Chander Sehgal, Moga vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -2, Moga

In the result, the subject appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 74/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Mohit Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 68

impugned order, it is revealed that the ld. CIT(A) has rejected the assessee’s explanation and application filed under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidence merely stating as deserved to be rejected without giving any reason for rejection of the additional evidence in view of the provisions ... Rule 46A of the ITAT Rule 1963. In our view, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have rebutted the admission of additional evidence being not covered under the four exceptions provided under Rule 46A of the ITAT Rule 1963 for non- admission of the additional evidence filed by the assessee

Ekta Garg, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2685/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Bansal, CA
Section 68

outset, we find it necessary and appropriate to evaluate the order of Ld. CIT(A) dismissing prayer of assessee seeking admission of additional evidence. In para 5.1 the Ld. CIT(A) noted that assessee by submitting confirmation of Shri Ganesh Rolling Mills, acknowledgment of ITR of Shri Deepak Garg claiming ... discarded or dismissed at the threshold without evaluation. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing prayer of assessee seeking admission of additional evidence. It is pertinent to mention that although the Ld. CIT(A) in para 5.2 denied to admit additional evidence but at the same time

Maharana Pratap Khelgaonsociety, Udaipur vs. CIT(E), Jaipur

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

ITA 131/JODH/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur16 Aug 2023AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotemaharana Pratap Vs. Cit (Exemption) Khelgoan Society, Kailash Height, Lal Khelgaon Parisar, Kothi, Tonk Road, Udaipur-313001, Jaipur – 302015, Rajasthan. Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Aagam0274P Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Lodha, Ca.Ar Revenue By : Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 14.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption)(Cit(E)) Passed U/Sec12Ab(1)(B) Of The Act Dated 24.02.2023. Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Lodha, CA.ARFor Respondent: Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain
Section 12ASection 2(15)

case on merits and has filed an application for admission of the additional evidence under Rule 29 of ITAT rules and prayed for admission of additional evidence and substantiated the submissions with the factual paper book and judicial decisions.. Per Contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the evidences were ... emphasized that the assessee has submitted the details as called by the authorities, The assessee is filling the application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of ITAT rules with (i) Copy of letter dated 19-07-2023 from Urban Improvement Trust Udaipur (UTI) Udaipur (ii) Letters from various

Shri Kuldeep Kumar, Bikaner vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Bikaner

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

ITA 221/JODH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2010-11 Sh. Kuldeep Kumar S/O Ram Income Tax Officer, Swaroop, Chak-13 Kyd Vs Ward-1(4), Bikaner Khajuwala, Bikaner-3334023 Pan: Brkpk2021B Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Sh. Suresh Ojha, Advocate Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 09.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Nfac) Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 24.05.2023 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act Dated 21.11.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- 1. The Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer & Sustained By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Illegal Against The Law & Without Any Application Of Mind, Therefore, Is Liable For Quash. Sh. Kuldeep Kumar

Section 147Section 148Section 250

documents were filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A), Bikaner, vide letter dated 17.10.2019. Assessee had also filed an application for admission of additional evidence before ld. CIT(A), Bikaner. Then assessee filed all these details electronically before CIT(A) (NFAC), assessee filed copy of e-Proceedings Response

Saharan Ashiyana (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 2(3), Meerut

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

ITA 7527/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2013-14
For Appellant: SHRI Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 144

assessee filed under rule 46A on extraneous and irrelevant grounds which comes under the teeth of the law and casting "heavy burden" for admission of additional evidence in utter diregard to legislative scheme which governs additional evidence admission procedure and thereby erroneously sustaining the 2 ITA No.7527 /Del./2017 unlawful

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- II, Bathinda vs. Measage Jagtar Singh Prabhdayal, Fazilka

In the result, the cross appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 408/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar04 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. J. K. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

submission on the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). However, he failed to rebut the contentions of the department on the issue of admission of additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A on restricting GP rate and deleting the unexplained credits. 7. We have heard the rival contentions, perused

Shri Jagtar Singh Prabhdayal, Jalalabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-II, Bathinda

In the result, the cross appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 398/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar04 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. J. K. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

submission on the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). However, he failed to rebut the contentions of the department on the issue of admission of additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A on restricting GP rate and deleting the unexplained credits. 7. We have heard the rival contentions, perused

M/S. Punjab Iron & Steel Company Limited, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 75/ASR/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 68

order dated 18.12.2019. The proceedings in this case have been attended by Sh. Nirmal Mahajan, CA, and the AR filed an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A and the same is reproduced below: “Sub: Application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules ... Punjab Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3.1 During the course of appellate proceedings, the above application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A along with documents were sent to the AO for comments. In response, the AO submitted report as under: “Sub:- Appeal

Raju Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Cirle - 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2092/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2016-17
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 23(4)(b)

this stage. Even on merits, since there was no search in the case of dismissed.  The assessee has filed an application for admission of additional evidence vide letter dated 29.11.2022. It is an Affidavit of Shri Sanjay Kabra, CA. In this regard, it is submitted that the assessee is going