← 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

Teksons P. Ltd, Thane vs. DCIT 5(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3217/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Us, The Preliminary Ground Raised Is That There Is A Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice Committed By The Ld. Cit(A) While Dismissing The Appeal Of 2 M/S. Teksons Pvt. Ltd.

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

para 7.3.4. 3 M/s. Teksons Pvt. Ltd., page 10 of his order. Despite the recommendation of the ld. AO and despite his initial admission of additional evidences which is evident from the fact that a remand report is called for from the ld. AO, the ld. CIT(A) merely brushed

Atul Dushyant Lall, Mumbai vs. ITO 34 (1) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2279/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Kirit ShethFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 253(3)

aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us. 6. During the course of hearing, learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) referred to the application seeking admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. The learned A.R. submitted that the assessee could not explain his case

K.G. Krishna, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 312/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &
Section 153A

account extract. 4. Copy of agreement to sell dated 26.03.2012 201 — 207 5. The assessee filed petitions for all these assessment years for admission of additional evidences, which were not filed before the lower authorities. It was submitted that out of these additional evidences certain evidences are not available

K.G. Krishna, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

ITA 311/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &
Section 153A

account extract. 4. Copy of agreement to sell dated 26.03.2012 201 — 207 5. The assessee filed petitions for all these assessment years for admission of additional evidences, which were not filed before the lower authorities. It was submitted that out of these additional evidences certain evidences are not available

K.G. Krishna, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

ITA 310/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &
Section 153A

account extract. 4. Copy of agreement to sell dated 26.03.2012 201 — 207 5. The assessee filed petitions for all these assessment years for admission of additional evidences, which were not filed before the lower authorities. It was submitted that out of these additional evidences certain evidences are not available

K.G. Krishna, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 309/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &
Section 153A

account extract. 4. Copy of agreement to sell dated 26.03.2012 201 — 207 5. The assessee filed petitions for all these assessment years for admission of additional evidences, which were not filed before the lower authorities. It was submitted that out of these additional evidences certain evidences are not available

K.G. Krishna, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 308/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &
Section 153A

account extract. 4. Copy of agreement to sell dated 26.03.2012 201 — 207 5. The assessee filed petitions for all these assessment years for admission of additional evidences, which were not filed before the lower authorities. It was submitted that out of these additional evidences certain evidences are not available

K. G. Krishna, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 307/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &
Section 153A

account extract. 4. Copy of agreement to sell dated 26.03.2012 201 — 207 5. The assessee filed petitions for all these assessment years for admission of additional evidences, which were not filed before the lower authorities. It was submitted that out of these additional evidences certain evidences are not available

M/S. Bangalore International Airport Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 567/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar S.R., CIT(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

decide the enduring benefit. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 14. Before us, the assessee has filed application for admission of additional evidence consisting of detailed break-up of software expenditure and prayed for admission of additional evidence. The ld. AR drew our attention to the description

Amjad Anwar Shahbazker, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 13(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of AO for statistical purpose and ground raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1502/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Haresh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 143(2)

despite opportunity provided. Much later after a few hearings in the appellate proceedings, appellant filed additional evidence. No case was made out for admission of additional evidence and no explanation was filed as to why the same was not produced 6 ITA.NO. 1502/MUM/2020 (A.Y: 2012-13) Amjad Anwar Shahbazker before

ITO-12(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Grd Steelindustries Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1918/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ito-12(2)(3), M/S Grd Steel Industries Private Room No. 226, 2Nd Floor, Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Vs. 203, Tirupati Udyog, I B Patel Road, Mumbai-400020. Off W E Highway Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aaccn 8254 G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Haresh P. Shah, Ar Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Haresh P. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, DR

submitted that during remand proceeding the Ld. Assessing Officer Assessing Officer M/s GRD Steel Industries Limited M/s GRD Steel Industries Limited 4 objected admission of additional evidences including copy of bank objected admission of additional evidences including copy of bank objected admission of additional evidences including copy of bank statement

M/S. Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT (Ltu)-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 533/MUM/2022[2014--15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2022

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singheverest Kanto Cylinder Vs. Dcit (Ltu) – 2 Ltd., 29Th Floor, Centre-1, 204, Raheja Centre World Trade Centre-1 Free Press Journal Cuffe Parade, Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400005. Mumbai – 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace0836F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Sekhar Gupta.Ar Respondent By : Shri.Pankaj Kumar.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Passed U/S 143(1) R.W.S 144C & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri.Sekhar Gupta.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Pankaj Kumar.DR
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 115jSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

considered the information on record and the assessee has a good case on merits and is filing application for the admission of additional evidence which goes to the roots of the case and prayed to consider the additional evidence and allow the assesse appeal. Contra, the Ld. DR supported ... respect of the additions. The assessee has filed an application for Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd, Mumbai 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 and prayed for an opportunity to substantiate

A. B. Nagi Reddy, Mumbai vs. ACIT -Circle-2, Thane

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1486/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala
Section 143(3)Section 250

able to file the appeal against the order passed by CIT(A). He further submitted that an application for admission of additional evidence has also been filed under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 to place on record additional evidence as the Appellant

M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited (Successor in Interest to Tyco Electronics Systems India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals -14, Ltu, Bangalore

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

ITA 720/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 234Section 234B

laws. These documents have a significant bearing on the appeal before your Honours and are relevant for the disposal of this appeal.” 5. Admission of additional evidence under Rule 29. The assessee filed additional evidence and also application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules

M/S. Model Infra Corporation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 11/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Model Infra Corporation Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 6, Second Floor, Smk Commissioner Of Chambers, Income Tax, First A Main Road, Circle – 1(1), Yelahanka New Town, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 064. Pan: Aadcm7125J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nitish Ranjan, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 29-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Dated 25.10.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-4, Bangalore For A.Y. 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: Tax Effect Relating Grounds Of Appeal To Each Ground Of Appeal The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income- 1. Tax (Appeals) Is Opposed To Law, Facts & Na - Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Ranjan, CA
Section 36Section 36(2)

debtors written off of Rs. 2,25,20,383/-. 3.2.1 At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that, the assessee filed a petition for admission of additional evidence on 19.10.2020, wherein, the documents relevant in support of the claims by the assessee are placed. The Ld.AR submitted that, the assessee ... that, only written submissions were filed, and therefore the issue could not be analysed based on the evidences. The Ld.AR thus prayed for admission of additional evidence. 3.2.2 The Ld.DR vehemently objected for admission of additional evidence. However, he could not controvert that the order of Ld.CIT(A) is cryptic

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India LLP (Sucessor of Delotte Touche Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT -Cir 6(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 9/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.09/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu बिधम/ Acit-Circle 6(2)(1) India Llp (Successor Of Room No.504, 5Th Floor, Vs. Delotte Touche Tohmatsu Aayakar Bhavan, India Pvt. Ltd.) Maharshi Karve Road, One International Centre, Churchgate, Mumbai- Tower-3, 32Nd Floor, 400020. Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400013. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aalfd7157J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ketan Ved Revenue By: Ms. R. M. Madhavi (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Nfac), Delhi Dated 15.11.2021 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Drew Our Attention To The Fact That The First Appellate Authority (Nfac) Has Passed The Order Without Giving Proper Opportunity To The Assessee. According To The Ld. Ar, The Assessee Had Filed All The Documents Sought For By The Cit(A) As Well As Had Filed Application Dated 23.01.2019 For Admission Of Additional Evidences (Refer Page No. 5 To 8 Of The Paper Book) As Well As Copy Of Letter Dated 25.10.2021 Uploaded On Income Tax E- Filing Portal On 09.10.2021 In Response To The Notices Dated 01.10.2021 & 11.10.2021 Respectively (Page No. 1 To 4 Of The Paper Book)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Ms. R. M. Madhavi (DR)
Section 36(1)(iii)

assessee had filed all the documents sought for by the CIT(A) as well as had filed application dated 23.01.2019 for admission of additional evidences (refer page no. 5 to 8 of the paper book) as well as copy of letter dated 25.10.2021 uploaded on Income Tax e- filing portal

Shri V Narayana Reddy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(3)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 663/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashanth, CA
Section 234B

same was not produced before the AO. The appellant has not satisfied the conditions under Rule 46A(1) for admission of additional evidence in the form of the affidavit and hence the same is not admitted in appellate proceedings. Further, it is noted that none of the bank document copies

Shri V Narayana Reddy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(3)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 662/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashanth, CA
Section 234B

same was not produced before the AO. The appellant has not satisfied the conditions under Rule 46A(1) for admission of additional evidence in the form of the affidavit and hence the same is not admitted in appellate proceedings. Further, it is noted that none of the bank document copies

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 6(3)(4), Bangalore vs. Shri Narayana Venkatarama Reddy, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1053/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashanth, CA
Section 234B

same was not produced before the AO. The appellant has not satisfied the conditions under Rule 46A(1) for admission of additional evidence in the form of the affidavit and hence the same is not admitted in appellate proceedings. Further, it is noted that none of the bank document copies

Mr.Nanjunda Renuka Aradhya, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 397/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Nitish Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Basaganni, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 194CSection 194C(2)Section 206ASection 40Section 43B

that a similar view may be taken by the Tribunal in the instant case. Further, the learned AR has filed a petition for admission of additional evidence. The relevant portion of the same reads as follows:- “9. Aggrieved with the same, the Petitioner is now in appeal before