← 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

The ACIT-Central Circle-2, Rajkot vs. Shri Vicky Balkrishna Mehta, Rajkot

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 130/RJT/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Feb 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal"नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Vicky Balkrishna Mehta, Income-Tax, 7Th Floor, Mansrovar Central Circle-2, Apartment, Royal Park, Rajkot Kalawad Road, Rajkot Pan : Agqpm 6495 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 22.01.2020 Passed U/S 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2004-05. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(c)Section 149(3)Section 250(6)

assessment order(s) impugned in these appeals under consideration and has made submission praying for admission of these grounds and also submission for admission of additional evidences (related to the appellant's case that the funds were earned outside India and were of 1970s). They were sent

Singh Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT-Circle-24(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2670/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2014-15 Singh Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 9, Bougain Villa Marg, Circle-24(2), Dlf Phase-2, New Delhi. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122001. Pan: Aajcs3083M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Ayushi Gupta, Ca & Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2023 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.02.2019 Of The Cit(A)-8, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under:- “That The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) - 8, Dated 01/02/2019 Is Bad In Law • & On Facts. • That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs. 2,86,50,000/- Representing Unsecured Loan Creditors U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. • The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Holding That The Assessee Has Failed To Discharge The Onus Of Proving Credit-Worthiness Of Lenders. • That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law By Not Accepting The Application Under Rule 46A For Additional Evidence. • That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts By Stating That The Assessee Has Not Made Any Application U/R 46A For The Admission Of Additional Evidences. The Assessee Had Duly Filed An Application U/R 46A Dated 15/01/2019 For Additional Evidences Along With The Submissions & Other Evidences Which The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Consider & Thereby Incorrectly Alleged At Pg. 8,1St Para, 3Rd Line That No Application U/R 46A Has Been Filed. • That The Appellant Craves To Amend/Alter/Modify The Grounds Of Appeal And/Or To Raise Additional Grounds Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Ms Ayushi Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 68

That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts by stating that the assessee has not made any application u/r 46A for the admission of additional evidences. The assessee had duly filed an application u/r 46A dated 15/01/2019 for additional evidences along with the submissions and other evidences which ... that the ld.CIT(A) has erred on facts by stating that the 2 assessee has not made any application u/r 46A for the admission of additional evidences whereas the assessee had duly filed an application u/r 46A dated 15/01/2019 for admission and consideration of additional evidences along with the submissions