← 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

Sharmila Arun Patil, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-1(4), Kalyan

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

ITA 112/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri N.A. KulkarniFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Nair, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 194Section 250Section 253(3)

Authorised Representative („learned AR’) wish to file bank statements of the assessee by way of Sharmila Arun Patil ITA No.112/Mum./2021 application seeking admission of additional evidence. The learned AR further submitted that assessee was not granted proper opportunity to rebut Assessing Officer‟s observations in the remand report filed

Shri Harish Wadhwa Legal Heir of Shri Shivkumar Thanwardas Wadhwa, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 561/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 Shri. Harish Wadhwa Legal Heir Of Vs. Ito, Shri Shivkumar Thanwardas Wadhwa, Ward – 1(1)(1), 165, 9Th Main, Rmv Extention, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 080. Pan : Aaapw 9599 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Yogesh Joijode, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Yogesh Joijode, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

shall be deleted and necessary direction shall be given in this 2. The learned AR filed additional evidence along with a petition for admission of additional evidence. 3. The facts of the case are that in this case, the assessment was completed under section ... order of the AO. Now, once again, the assessee is in appeal before us. Before us, the learned AR filed petition for admission of additional evidence explaining the reasons for not filing these documents before the lower authorities : 1. Cash Book 2. Corporation Bank Statements 3. Indusind Statements 4. Ledger

Zodiac Maritime Agencies India P. Ld., Mumbai vs. National E-Assesment Centre (Neac), Delhi

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

ITA 1225/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Anil SatheFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 234Section 234BSection 92C

assessee to its A.E. In support of its submissions, the assessee also filed petition under rule 9 of the DRP Rules, 2009, seeking admission of additional evidences in the nature of agreement entered into between the assessee and its A.E., summary of reimbursement of expenditure and other supporting documents ... part of the factual paper book filed by the assessee. We find that these documents were also furnished by way of application seeking admission of additional evidences before the learned DRP. In its remand report dated 02.03.2020, in reply to the additional evidences filed by the assessee, the TPO agreed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Bharath Infra Exports & Imports Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R, Addl.DIT (DR)
Section 133ASection 14ASection 69

other hand, by the assessee who is in an appeal before the CIT (A). Once the assessee invokes Rule 46A and prays for admission of additional evidence before the CIT (A), then the procedure prescribed in the said rule has to be scrupulously followed. The fact that sub-Section

Dell India Private Ltd., Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 562/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92C

prayed for the admission of the same. 38. The ld. DR supported the order of the lower authorities and objected to the admission of additional evidence. 39. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We notice that the reason for disallowance of the expenditure

M/S Wavell Investments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1644/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Cit (Osd) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room No. 552, 5 Th Floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacw0598C M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Cit (Osd) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room No. 552, 5 Th Floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Ms Ritika Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022

For Appellant: Ms Ritika Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(i)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

regarding alleged excess share price received by the assessee. At the time of hearing, assessee moved a petition for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of the Rules. Assessee submitted exhibit C1 to exhibit C4 containing page nos. 32-38 as additional evidences. Assessee submitted that assessee inadvertently omitted

Jt. CIT(OSD)-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1288/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Cit (Osd) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room No. 552, 5 Th Floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacw0598C M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Cit (Osd) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room No. 552, 5 Th Floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Ms Ritika Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022

For Appellant: Ms Ritika Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(i)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

regarding alleged excess share price received by the assessee. At the time of hearing, assessee moved a petition for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of the Rules. Assessee submitted exhibit C1 to exhibit C4 containing page nos. 32-38 as additional evidences. Assessee submitted that assessee inadvertently omitted

M/S. Shri Mahishasuramardini Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Haveri vs. Income Tax Officer, Wrd-1, Haveri

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

ITA 566/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Vishal S Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 234ASection 234BSection 69ASection 80P(2)(a)

assessee furnished details of assessee’s members who have deposited the money into their bank accounts with the assessee along with petition for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963. 12. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, submitted that the assessee

Novo Nordisk India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 611/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

deduction wherever applicable and details of Form 26A was submitted before the DRP which was not taken into consideration. He therefore prayed for admission of additional evidence. IT(TP)A No.611/Bang/2021 Page 4 of 12 8. The ld. DR objected to the admission of additional evidence and relied

M/S. Onmobile Global Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2560/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 244ASection 32

deduction and various judicial precedents have allowed such a claim. The facts are already on record and no fresh enquiry is required. Therefore, admission of additional evidence was prayed for by the ld AR. The ld DR opposed the admission of additional ground. Keeping into consideration ... Nos.139 & 2560/Bang/2019 Page 12 of 40 for which they are compensated at Cost plus Margin. The ld. AR prayed for admission of additional evidence. 15. The ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and objected to the admission of additional evidence. 16. We have considered the rival

M/S Onmobile Global Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 139/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 244ASection 32

deduction and various judicial precedents have allowed such a claim. The facts are already on record and no fresh enquiry is required. Therefore, admission of additional evidence was prayed for by the ld AR. The ld DR opposed the admission of additional ground. Keeping into consideration ... Nos.139 & 2560/Bang/2019 Page 12 of 40 for which they are compensated at Cost plus Margin. The ld. AR prayed for admission of additional evidence. 15. The ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and objected to the admission of additional evidence. 16. We have considered the rival

Deepak Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1535/MUM/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhdeepak Jain Vs. Ito – 33(1)(4) 202, Emp 54, Evershine (Formerly Assessed By Millanium Paradize, Ito 25(3)(2),R No. Thakur Vill, Kandivali (E) 708, 7Th Floor, C- Mumbai – 400101 12,Pratyakshakar Bhavan Bkc,Bandra- Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aacpj1817E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt.Mahita Nair.Dr Date Of Hearing 04.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08.08.2022 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) – 45, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt.Mahita Nair.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

ignored the material on his record relating to hearing which took place subsequent to the filing of written submissions namely application from admission of additional evidence vide letter dt. 07-03-2016, AO's remand report dt 24-05- 2016 appellant's comment on the remand report and hearing which

M/S. Mindtree Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 213/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 10ASection 115J

claim that the insurance charges incurred are not billed to customers and not part of export invoices. The ld AR prayed for admission of additional evidence. The ld. DR objected to the admission of additional evidence on the ground that the assessee was provided sufficient opportunities before the lower authorities

DCIT 4(1), Mumbai vs. Aman Infratex Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/S.Aman Agencies Textiles 9I) Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7487/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 115Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

case of two share holders namely Mrs. Pushpadevi Agarwal (Rs.1,50,000/-) and Mrs. Kirti Agarwal (Rs.6,50,000). 3.4. As regards admissibility of additional evidence. I hold that additional evidence being new address of the erstwhile share holders furnished during the appellate proceedings is required to be admitted ... balance amount. 9. In appeal before the learned CIT(A), assessee filed details of the share applicants by way of application seeking admission of additional evidence. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the learned CIT(A) forwarded the additional evidence filed by the assessee

Anil Bhagwan Advani, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4385/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Tapas MisraFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR
Section 154Section 251(1)Section 45(5)(b)Section 48Section 55A

Meher Rusi Dalal. Pursuant to directions from the Bench on 22nd July 2021, the assessee had submitted, vide application of for admission of additional evidence dated 05.10.2021, a compilation of correspondence between Kishore Mansukhani and the advocates and assessees. These show the extent of involvement of Mr. Mansukhani

ITO 25 (3)(3), Mumbai vs. Rahul Kantilal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6805/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 6805 /Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2012-13 ) Ito- 25(3)(3) Vs. Rahul Kantilal Shah Room No. 606, 6Th Floor 701, Saroj Bldg, C-10, Pratyakshakar Sardar Vallabhbhai Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E) Patel Road, Mumbai -400051. Vile Parle (W) Mumbai-400056. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaips0543C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.T.Shankar.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Anuj Kishnadwala.Ar Date Of Hearing 09.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: This Appeal Is Filed The By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-77, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr.T.Shankar.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Anuj Kishnadwala.AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 57

appellant, remand report and also the appellant's comments on remand report. In the remand report, the AO has objected to the admission of additional evidence. In the decision rendered in the case of Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah vs. CIT reported at 231 IT 1, the ITA No. 6505 /Mum/2018

ITO 10 (2)(4), Mumbai vs. Memphis Investment & Trading Co. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6239/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 10(2)(4), Vs. M/S Memphis 2Nd Floor, Room No. Investment & Trading 213, Aayakar Bhavan Co. Ltd Churchgate, 146, Chinar Bldg, Mumbai-400020. Sher-E-Punjab Society, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm6735B Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri.Salil Aggarwal, Sr.Adv & Shri.Shailesh Gupta.Ar Revenue By : Shri.T. Shankar. Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Memphis Investment & Trading Co. Ltd, Mumbai. 1. 1. "On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deciding That The Assessee Had Discharged Its Onus Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Had Failed To Establish The Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Transactions." 2. "On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Considering The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Delhi High Court In The Case Of Mis. Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd. Wherein The Hon'Ble High Court Has Made Observation With Respect To Creditworthiness 3. The Appellant Prays That The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A) On The Above Ground Be Set Aside & That Of The Ao Be Restored. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Amend Or Alter Any Grounds Or Add A New Ground Which May Be Necessary.

For Appellant: Shri.Salil Aggarwal, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Shri.T. Shankar. CIT.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 68

ground of appeal of the assessee. On the second disputed issue of addition of share premium, the assessee has filed an application for admission of additional evidence and the remand report was called for. The CIT(A) has observed that the details of shares investor Mr. Anil Balla were ... Rule 46A of the I T Rules and that the additional evidences should not be accepted. The CIT(A) has dealt on the admission of additional evidences referred at Para 5.1 of the order and was admitted. Finally on the merits of the case, the CIT(A) dealt

Alpana Jain, Bhayander vs. DCIT CC 1 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4983/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2022AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 68

them afresh. 4. We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. From the submissions made by the assessee in the petition filed for admission of additional evidences, we are of the view that the assessee was dependent upon the earlier counsel in the income tax matters. According to the assessee

Alpana Jain, Bhayender vs. DCIT CC 1 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4982/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2022AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 68

them afresh. 4. We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. From the submissions made by the assessee in the petition filed for admission of additional evidences, we are of the view that the assessee was dependent upon the earlier counsel in the income tax matters. According to the assessee

Shri.J M Vrushabendraiah, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

Vrushabendraiah, Hospete Page 7 of 58 (English version) Shri J.M. Vrushabendraiah, Hospete Page 8 of 58 3. The assessee stated that the above admission of additional evidence, which was not filed before the lower authorities. It was submitted this additional evidence was not available at the time of assessment