← 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

ACIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi vs. U K Paints India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Revenue for A

ITA 764/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit Vs. M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Central Circle – 10 Ltd., 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi - 48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Co No. 244/Del/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4115/Del/2013) (For Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd., 19, Dda Central Circle – 10 Commercial Complex, New Delhi Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Acit Vs. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 27(1) 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

order of CIT(A). 13. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Revenue is objecting the admission of additional evidences. We find that CIT(A) before admitting the additional evidences had called two remand reports from AO; AO had submitted remand report dated 13/02/2012 ... find that CIT(A) for admission of additional evidences had relied on the decision 6 rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Virgin Securities and Credits P. Ltd. reported in 332 ITR 396 (Delhi) and concluded that the admission of additional evidences was crucial

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S U.K. Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Revenue for A

ITA 4115/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit Vs. M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Central Circle – 10 Ltd., 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi - 48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Co No. 244/Del/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4115/Del/2013) (For Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd., 19, Dda Central Circle – 10 Commercial Complex, New Delhi Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Acit Vs. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 27(1) 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

order of CIT(A). 13. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Revenue is objecting the admission of additional evidences. We find that CIT(A) before admitting the additional evidences had called two remand reports from AO; AO had submitted remand report dated 13/02/2012 ... find that CIT(A) for admission of additional evidences had relied on the decision 6 rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Virgin Securities and Credits P. Ltd. reported in 332 ITR 396 (Delhi) and concluded that the admission of additional evidences was crucial

Suraj Dinesh Singhal, Mumbai vs. ITO-20(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7483/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesuraj Dinesh Singhal Vs. Ito – 20(3)(3) B-601/602, Green 4Th Floor, Piramal Acres, Lokhandwala Chambers, Lalbaug, Complex, Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400013. Mumbai – 400053. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aowps3343E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Siddharth Shriovastav.Ar Respondent By : Mr. S.G.Mehta.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.05.2022 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 (Appeals) – 53, Mumbai Order Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal

For Appellant: Mr.Siddharth Shriovastav.ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.G.Mehta.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 69ASection 80C

considered the information on record and the assessee has a good case on merits and is filing application for the admission of additional evidence and prayed to consider the additional evidence and allow the assesse appeal. Contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A). 5. We heard ... submit the information before the AO and the CIT(A) in respect of the additions. The assessee has filed an application for admission of additional evidence before the Honble Tribunal. The Ld. AR prayed that this additional evidence play a vital role in the decision making of the case

Chetan Lachmandas Bhatia, Mumbai vs. ITO (It)-1(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 386/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrychetan Lachmandas Ito, Bhatia, C-309, 3Rd (International बनाम/ Floor, Atul Nagar Tower, Tax)-1(2)(1), Vs. Mathwadas, Ext. Road, Mumbai. Irani Wadi No.3, Kandivali West, Mumbai-400067. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aotpb9588F (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Chaitee Londhe, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondentby: Shri Ram Prakash Rastogi, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 17/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 29/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant- Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 13.12.2022 Passed By Ito, International Tax-1(2)(1), Mumbai ( In Short ‘ The Assessing Officer) For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2014-15, Pursuant To The Direction Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“Drp”) Dated 28.11.2022. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Alongwith Form No.36 Were Revised By The Assessee. The Revised Grounds Are Reproduced As Under:-

For Appellant: Ms. Chaitee Londhe, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Prakash Rastogi, Sr.AR
Section 147Section 148

requested for sending the matters back to the AO. 8. Ld.Sr.DR though relied on the order of AO but did not object for admission of additional evidences. 10. We have heard rival submission on the issue-in- dispute and perused the relevant material on record. The dispute is regarding source

ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna vs. M/S Tirupati Homes Ltd, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 71/PAT/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleita Nos.70 & 71/Pat/2020 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit, Central Circle-3, Patna M/S. Tirupati Homes Limited Ground Floor, Arvina Vs Apartment, Nageshwar Colony, Patna – 800001. Pan: Aadct 7444 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Alok Kumar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) – 3, Patna Dated 18.06.2020 & 19.06.2020 Respectively For A.Y. 2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,35,06,630/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Undisclosed/Misreporting Of Sale Of Flats, Accepting The Contention & Calculation Made By The Assessee In Which The Main Questionable Point Is Deduction Of Expense Of Rs.5,19,35,503/- On Account Of "Excess Provision Of Earlier Years Deducted'" To Complete The Substantially Completed Units. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Accepted This Contention Which Was Made For The First Time Before Him, Without Making Proper Verification & Verifying Corresponding Entry In The Accounts.

For Appellant: Shri Alok Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144

assessee so that the revenue is not defrauded or denied of the legible taxes which it has to receive from the assessee. Merely admission of additional evidences without giving an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to confront all these evidences without calling for remand report regarding verification of genuineness

ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna vs. M/S Tirupati Homes Ltd, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 70/PAT/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleita Nos.70 & 71/Pat/2020 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit, Central Circle-3, Patna M/S. Tirupati Homes Limited Ground Floor, Arvina Vs Apartment, Nageshwar Colony, Patna – 800001. Pan: Aadct 7444 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Alok Kumar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) – 3, Patna Dated 18.06.2020 & 19.06.2020 Respectively For A.Y. 2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,35,06,630/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Undisclosed/Misreporting Of Sale Of Flats, Accepting The Contention & Calculation Made By The Assessee In Which The Main Questionable Point Is Deduction Of Expense Of Rs.5,19,35,503/- On Account Of "Excess Provision Of Earlier Years Deducted'" To Complete The Substantially Completed Units. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Accepted This Contention Which Was Made For The First Time Before Him, Without Making Proper Verification & Verifying Corresponding Entry In The Accounts.

For Appellant: Shri Alok Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144

assessee so that the revenue is not defrauded or denied of the legible taxes which it has to receive from the assessee. Merely admission of additional evidences without giving an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to confront all these evidences without calling for remand report regarding verification of genuineness

Bhagyashree Manohar Sawant, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward - 26(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 791/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms. Padmavathy Sbhagyashree Manohar Ito, Ward-26(1)(2), Sawant, 702, 7Th Floor, Room.No.303, बनाम/ Ptabuddha Samata Co- Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Op Hsg. Society, Bkc, Bandra(E), Sant Rohidas Marg, Mumbai-400051. Sion, Mumbai-400022. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Cohps2513D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Malav Sheth.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Anil Gupta.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 22/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 23/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale - Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “Additions Of Rs.25,48,198/- Confirmed Without Giving Opportunity Of Being Heard Is Bad-In-Law & Must Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Malav Sheth.ARFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

information filed in the proceedings. Further, 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 and prayed for allowing the appeal. Per Contra, Ld. Sr. DR submitted that cash ... Ld.AR emphasized that the assessee has submitted the details as called for by the authorities. The assessee is filling the application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of ITAT rules with the sponsorship confirmation from ICICI Lombard General Insurance, Sponsorship amount confirmation from Central Bank Of India