“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

Vgn Projects Estates Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, TDS Circle - 3, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3778/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3777 & 3778/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 Vgn Projects Estates Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner 43/14, 3Rd Floor, Hameediacentre, Vs. Of Income Tax, Haddows Road, Tds Circle-3, Nungambakkam, Chennai Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Chevo 9067C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam

Section 201Section 250

assessment proceedings. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee has filed all evidences before the Tribunal along with the petition for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Rules, 1963. The Ld.AR submitted that additional evidences now filed before the Tribunal is essential

Vgn Projects Estates Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, TDS Circle - 3, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3777/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam

Section 201Section 250

Muthiah Lakshmanan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(5), Chennai

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

ITA 3016/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. T.V Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, C.I.T

Section 111ASection 144Section 69

will represent on behalf of the assessee before the AO to complete the assessment proceedings effectively. 6. Per contra, The Ld.DR, objected for admission of additional evidence raised by the assessee. Further, the ld.DR submitted that both the Assessing Officer and the ld.CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunity to appear before

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Ndw Development Corporation LLP, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3817/MUM/2025[2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2022-23 Income Tax Officer-20(2)(1), Ndw Development Corporation 304, Piramal Chambers, Llp, Parel, Vs. B 201-202, Doodh Wala Complex, Mumbai-400012. Chsl, Belashis Road, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008. Pan : Aapfn4779C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue By : Shri Inder Solanki, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Inder Solanki, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 694Section 69A

additional evidences, remand report submitted by the AO and the rejoinder submitted by the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) has returned his findings on admission of additional evidences as well as on merits of the additions so made by the AO and we deem it appropriate to refer to the same ... which emphasize that additional evidence should be admitted if it is crucial to rendering justice. 6.1 While the Assessing Officer has opposed the admission of additional evidence citing Rule 46A, I find that the circumstances of the case justify its acceptance. The principles of natural justice demand that an assessee

Ashish Kumar, Shravasti vs. ITO-1, Bahraich

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

ITA 736/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ashish Kumar V. The Ito-1 S/O Onkar Nath, Bardehra Bahraich Bharigan, Pathpur, Ekauna Shravasti (U.P) Tan/Pan:Deqpk8563B (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Raghunath Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.01.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Of Rs.11,50,000/- In His Bank Account No.4666020000005 Maintained With Bank Of Baroda, Bahraich, During The Demonetization Period. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice To The Assessee Under Section 148 Of The Act. However, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee To The Notice Issued Under

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

appeal of the assessee ex-parte qua the assessee. During the course of hearing, the Ld. A.R. filed an application dated 18.12.2025 for admission of additional evidence in the form of copy of License issued by the Office of the Plant Protection Officer, Shrawasti evidencing that the assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(3), Mumbai vs. Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2530/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S.(Physical Hearing) Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, Dcit, Central Circle 3(3), Gala No. 22 A Block, 1St Floor, Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Vs Ghanshyam Industrial Estate, Air India Building, Veera Desai Road, Andheri West, Nariman Point, Mumbai Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaafa 2341 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Dcit, Central Circle 3(3), Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, Room No.404, 4Th Floor, Vs Gala No. 22 A Block, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, Ghanshyam Industrial Estate, Bandra Kurla Complex, Veera Desai Road, Andheri Mumbai-400051 West, Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaafa 2341 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 40A(3)Section 68

assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A). Before ld CIT(A) the assessee filed detailed written submission. The assessee also filed application for admission of additional evidence; vide application dated 8 February 2023. In support of unsecured loan of ₹ 18.00 lakhs, which was added under section 68, the assessee furnished ... disallowable under section 40A(3). We find that before ld CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submissions and also filed application for admission of additional evidences. We find that ld CIT(A) on proving opportunity to the assessee admitted the additional evidences. The evidences furnished by the assessee consist

Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2504/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Section 254(1)Section 40A(3)Section 68

Guneet Kaur Chadha, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-12(2), Delhi

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

ITA 3005/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Roymrs. Guneet Kaur Chadha, Vs. Income Tax Officer, House No. 190, Third Floor, Ward-12(3), Jor Bagh, New Delhi- Delhi 110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Acwpc9064A Assessee By : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv Shri Sandeep Yadav, Adv Revenue By: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 57

reply along with all the supporting documents as additional evidences before the Learned CITA. The order of Learned CITA is even silent about admission of additional evidences filed by the assessee thereby resulting in violation of principles of natural justice. The Learned CIT(A) simply endorsed the views ... filing the reply before the Learned AO and the action of the Learned CIT(A) in not even commenting about the admission of additional evidences is not appreciated. Since the additional evidences filed by the assessee go to the root of the matter and would be relevant and crucial

Rohan Promotors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 21(3), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 4849/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

preferred before the First Appellate Authority who on 09.01.2017 in turn rejected the appeal preferred by the assessee, dismissing the application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Hence the instant appeal before us. 3. None appears on behalf of the assessee

M/S Rohan Promotors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 968/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Gopal Aggarwal, Faridabad vs. ITO(OSD)-Faridabad, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1678/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Manish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

assessment proceedings. 4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in arbitrarily rejecting the application for admission of additional evidence under rule 46A allegedly on the ground of non-specification of additional evidence despite the fact that assessee had specifically requested to admit

ACIT-16(3), Fourth Floor vs. Muffazal Lakdawala, Rna Mirage S.K Ahire Marg

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3254/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2020-21 Acit – 16 (3), Muffazal Lakdawala, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Worli Mumbai – 400018. Mumbai – 400020. Pan – Aacpl 2097 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Sh. Priyank Ghia A/W Ms. Simoni Shah, Ld. Ars. Revenue By : Sh. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 14.03.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Had Taken/Received Unsecured Loan To The Tune Of Rs. 3,28,42,847/- In Total From The Lenders, As Detailed Below: - Anjuman E Mohammadi – 1,50,00,000/- Reshma Jai Ram Shetty – 1,75,00,000/- Digestive Health Institute By Dr. Muffi Pvt. Ltd. – 3,42,847/-

For Appellant: Sh. Priyank Ghia a/w Ms. Simoni Shah, Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Sh. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Ld. SR. D.R

Section 133Section 250Section 68

parties and perused the material available on record. No doubt in Rule 46 (A) of the Rules, there are certain conditions for admission of additional evidence. However, sub-section 4 of Rule 46 (A) enumerated an exception that Ld. Commissioner is having powers to direct the production of any document

ITO 19.3.1, Mumbai vs. Mehta Suresh Ukhchand HUF, Mumbai

ITA 1390/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Ms Ridhisha JainFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 144Section 37Section 69CSection 74

addition of entire alleged purchases. The details were, thus, furnished before the Ld. CIT(A) under Rule 46A of the Act for admission as additional evidences, which were filed before the Ld. AO also but not taken on record. Further, it is submitted by the Ld.AR that ... making an addition of entire purchase. Before me the appellant has filed an application under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rule 1962 for admission of additional evidence that was filed before the ld AO who has not taken them on record. 5.4 Since the impugned assessment order were passed

Mrs. Urmila Jagdish Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 33(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5944/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaracit Circle 33(3), Mrs. Urmila Jagdish Bandra Kurla Mehta Complex, Bandra (E), 1604, E-Wing, Agarwal Vs. Mmbai-400 051 Residency, Shankar Lane, Kandivali (West), Mumbai- 400 067 Pan/Gir No. Adipm5257E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Ld. Ar Revenue By Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.12.2025

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54

additional evidence and called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. In the remand report, the Assessing Officer objected to the admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A and stated that sufficient opportunity had been provided to the assessee during assessment proceedings. During the remand proceedings, a notice under

M/S.U.S.Reality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-10(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1959/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 37(1)Section 68

assessment. The CIT(A) called for remand reports from the Assessing Officer and considered the assessee's submissions thereon. Further, the assessee sought admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A, which was objected to by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) declined to admit the additional evidence, holding that ... power u/s 142(2A) of the Act and further erred in considering extraneous material for upholding the ordering of special audit. 2. Admission of Additional Evidence u/r 46A: 2.1 The Learned CIT(A) erred in not admitting application for admission of additional evidence. 2.2 The Learned CIT(A) failed

Digamber Shankar Naik, Karwar vs. ITO, Ward - 2, Karwar

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

ITA 296/PAN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji26 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member)

emphasized that the assessee has submitted the details as called for by the authorities and now the assessee is filling the application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of ITAT rules with the affidavit of the vendor/seller affirming the sale transaction of the property and the additional consideration

Digamber Shankar Naik, Karwar vs. ITO, Ward - 2, Karwar

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

ITA 281/PAN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji26 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member)

Ranjeet Singh, Kurukshetra vs. ITO Ward-1, Kurushetra, Kurukshetra

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

ITA 271/CHANDI/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Abhinav Gupta, Advocate (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 144BSection 69A

Rules, 1963, as the same is necessary for the 3 proper adjudication of the appeal on merits, and all the conditions for the admission of additional evidence are duly fulfilled. 4. Prayer for Consequential Relief:- Because for allowing the addition, modification in the Grounds of Appeal, and for any consequential

Nidesh Jain, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-12(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1621/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1621/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Nidesh Jain Vs. Assistant Commissioner Hyderabad Of Income Tax Pan:Agtpj4773C Circle 12(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Y V Bhanu Narayan Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri T. Venkanna, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: CA Y V Bhanu Narayan RaoFor Respondent: : Shri T. Venkanna, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

before this Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had filed a petition under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 seeking admission of additional evidence. It was submitted that the additional evidence does not introduce any new facts but merely explains and summarizes the material already available ... Year 2017–18, tax could be levied only at 30% and not at 60%. 10. Per contra, the Ld. DR strongly opposed the admission of additional evidence and submitted that the assessee failed to Page 5 of 10 ITA No 1621 of 2025 Nidesh Jain produce the same before

Rajul Jayendra Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(1)(4), Mumbai

ITA 6512/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270A

father shri Jayendra Shah which was gifted to her and balance in her account. 9. In remand report Ld. AO opposed the admission of additional evidence u/r 46A(1), as the circumstances are not falling within the exceptions carved out in the said section for admission of the additional evidence