← 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

M/S I G Petrochemical Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2310/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George K. George

For Appellant: Shri Parthasarthy, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)
Section 14ASection 40

same. However, Ld. CIT(A) observed that assessee has not filed the formal petition for admission of additional grounds and the admission of additional evidence cannot be claimed as a matter of right and it is the duty of the assessee to explain the circumstances which prevented it from submitting ... deduct TDS. The additional evidence was not considered by the Ld. CIT(A) on the reason that assessee has not filed petition for admission of additional evidence. In our opinion, the additional evidence furnished by assessee is very important to consider so as to render substantial justice. Accordingly

M/S I G Petrochemicals Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2309/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George K. George

For Appellant: Shri Parthasarthy, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)
Section 14ASection 40

same. However, Ld. CIT(A) observed that assessee has not filed the formal petition for admission of additional grounds and the admission of additional evidence cannot be claimed as a matter of right and it is the duty of the assessee to explain the circumstances which prevented it from submitting ... deduct TDS. The additional evidence was not considered by the Ld. CIT(A) on the reason that assessee has not filed petition for admission of additional evidence. In our opinion, the additional evidence furnished by assessee is very important to consider so as to render substantial justice. Accordingly

Mukesh Shivdas Sonar, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central-3, Thane

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 1806/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

respectively. The Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the interest payable u/s 234A, 234B & 234C and also rejected the admission of additional evidence on the ground that the documents to be produced as additional evidence does not explain or certify the claim made by the assessee as they were not relied ... case of Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah‟s case (1998) 231 ITR 1 (Bom), a new dimension to the provision relating to admission of additional evidence before Ld. CIT(A) was considered. The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court rejected the contention of Ld. CIT(A) and held that under section

Mukesh Shivdas Sonar, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-3, Thane

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 1802/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2010-11
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

respectively. The Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the interest payable u/s 234A, 234B & 234C and also rejected the admission of additional evidence on the ground that the documents to be produced as additional evidence does not explain or certify the claim made by the assessee as they were not relied ... case of Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah‟s case (1998) 231 ITR 1 (Bom), a new dimension to the provision relating to admission of additional evidence before Ld. CIT(A) was considered. The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court rejected the contention of Ld. CIT(A) and held that under section

Dow Chemicals International Pvt Ltd. As Successor of Rohm and Haas (India) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 14 (1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7936/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dow Chemical International Private Income Tax Officer-14(1)(3), Limited As Successor Of Rohm & Hass Room No. 458, 4Th Floor, (India) Private Limited, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Godrej It Park-P2, 1St Floor Block B, 02, Mumbai-400020. Lbs Road, Godrej Business District, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079. Pan No. Aaacr 2855 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan R. Vora/For Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT-DR
Section 92C

additional companies selected by the ld. TPO from emulsions companies i.e. 10.78%). 13.9. Per contra ld. DR vehemently objected to the admission of additional evidences filed before this Tribunal and reiterated the findings of the ld. DRP. We have already held in A.Y.2010-11 that additional ITA Nos.2199/Mum/2015 & 6577/Mum/2018 & SA No.261/Mum/2019

M/S Anantha Refinery Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1554/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Pradeep &For Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

bogus; ITA Nos.1553 to 1554/Bang/2013 Page 11 of 42 6.5. In the meanwhile, we would like to refer to the petition for admission of additional evidence dated 23.1.2014 submitted by the assessee wherein it sought the permission of this Bench to submit the gross profit margins of comparable companies carrying

M/S Anantha Refinery Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1553/BANG/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Pradeep &For Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

bogus; ITA Nos.1553 to 1554/Bang/2013 Page 11 of 42 6.5. In the meanwhile, we would like to refer to the petition for admission of additional evidence dated 23.1.2014 submitted by the assessee wherein it sought the permission of this Bench to submit the gross profit margins of comparable companies carrying

Ym Motors P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The ACIT-8(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1274/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JaniFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani
Section 201Section 250Section 40

hearing, Shri Prakash Jani, the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee (“learned A.R.”) submitted that the assessee vide application dated 02.03.2022 has sought admission of additional evidences, which were received only after completion of Y.M. Motors Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.1274/Mum./2021 appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A) and have ... Officer for necessary verification. 9. On the other hand, Shri Hoshang B. Irani, the learned Departmental Representative (“learned D.R.”) vehemently objected to the admission of additional evidences furnished by the assessee and placed reliance on the order passed by the lower authorities. 10. We have considered the rival submissions

Jatan Securities Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT 14(2) (1), Mumbai

ITA 1828/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantआअसं. 1828/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2012-13) Jatan Securities Pvt. Ltd., 404, Laxmi Mall, Laxmi Industrial Estate, New Link Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai 400 053 Pan: Aaacj-2567-N ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 14(2)(1) Room No.432, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai- 400 020. अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Dr. P.Daniel ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri S.N.Kabra सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/04/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 11/04/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Dr. P.DanielFor Respondent: Shri S.N.Kabra
Section 68

appeal was transferred to National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The assessee again furnished the additional evidences and also filed an application for admission of additional evidences. The CIT(A) without admitting additional evidences has confirmed the addition made in the assessment order. The ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that ... confirmed the addition rejecting the documents. Thereafter, during the first appellate proceedings, the assessee filed additional evidences along with an application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. A copy of the said application dated 14/12/2016 along with online acknowledgement for filing

Smt.Nagammasidanna Patil, Kalaburagi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3, Kalaburagi

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

ITA 1977/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sri.Shree Hari Kutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 13(1)(e)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

assessee is based on the development that took place in the Lokayukta proceedings. In this context, the assessee has filed a petition for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. Our attention was specifically invited to the copy of the communication issued ... Income Tax Authorities. 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee has filed a petition for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. The additional evidence that are sought to be admitted are as follows

Bhushan Logistics Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 15(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2480/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 201Section 250Section 40

course of hearing, Shri Kishor Phadke, learned Authorised Representative (“learned A.R.”), submitted that assessee vide application dated 29 December 2021 has sought admission of additional evidence, which were received only after the completion of appellate proceedings before CIT(A) and have bearing on the present appeal. The learned A.R. submitted ... 2480/Mum./2019 6. On the other hand, Shri Chandra Vijay, learned Departmental Representative (“learned D.R.”) vehemently objected to the admission of additional evidence furnished by the assessee. Learned D.R submitted that the assessee has not sufficiently proved the delay in furnishing such details before the lower authorities. 7. We have

M/S Poddar Finin Consultancy P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-7(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1860/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1860/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Poddar Finin Consultancy बिधम/ Ito Ward Pvt. Ltd. Maharashtra-410206. Vs. 4A/B, Ground Floor, Tk Industries Estate, Sitaram Palturam Murai Marg, Mumbai- 400015. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcp3938D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 06.08.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1) The Assessment Order Passed By The Id. Assessing Officer (Ao) Is Invalid & Bad In Law. 2) (A) The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. AR)
Section 143(2)Section 35DSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

other judgments referred above ITA. No.1860/Mum/2020 A.Y. 2012-13 9. Before proceeding, | find it necessary to dwell upon the request of appellant for admission of additional evidence which contain the details that they would have filed before assessing officer. The acceptability of additional evidence is governed by prescribed rules ... under any of the provisions specified in the Rules. None have been claimed either. ITA. No.1860/Mum/2020 A.Y. 2012-13 Therefore, the request for admission of additional evidence cannot be accepted and stands rejected. 10. Conclusion: In the present facts of the case the best judgment assessment has not been agitated

M/S Embassy Inn Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2781/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm Embassy Inn Private Limited, The Assistant Commissioner 1St Floor, Of Income Tax, Embassy Point, Vs. Circle-2(1)(2), 150 Infantry Rod, Bengaluru Bengluru Pan – Aaocs2145R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Sri Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 57Section 57(3)

purpose of fair adjudication of the issue in dispute. 4. The Ld.DR did not raise any strong objection with regard to admission of additional evidence. 5. In our opinion, these above additional evidences are very much required to decide the issue in dispute, accordingly, these additional evidences are admitted

M/S Denso Kirloskar Industries Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 649/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T Suryanarayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 154

claim for adjustment towards underutilization of capacity, Foreign Exchange Fluctuation and Customs Duty (Ground 3, 4 and 5) . The ld.AR prayed for admission of additional evidences before the Tribunal as these evidences when considered would substantiate the claim of the assessee that the international transactions of the assessee

Final Copy (I) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 6(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1192/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalefinal Copy (I) Pvt Ltd Vs. Ito, Ward-6(3)(1) C/18, First Floor Royal Room No. 524, 5Th Industrial Estate, Sb Floor, Aayakar Naigaon Cross Road, Bhavan, Mk Marg, Wadala, Mumbai – Mumbai – 400020. 400031. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacf7458 Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Gunjan Kakkad.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Rajesh Kumar Yadav.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.03.2022 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)-12, Mumbai Passed 144 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Gunjan Kakkad.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Rajesh Kumar Yadav.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 36(2)

dismissed the appeal. The Ld.AR mentioned that the assessee could not submit the details before the lower authorities and made an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT rules and the Ld. DR submitted that the additional evidence has to be verified by the Assessing

Nayankumar S Sonawane, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)- 48, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4877/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Passing The Order. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred On Facts, In Law & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Rejecting The Application Under Rule 46A For Admission Of Additional Evidence. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred On Facts, In Law & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Confirming Addition Of Rs.1,61,887/- As Unexplained Cash Credits U/S. 68 Of The Income Tax Act To The Returned Income. The Said Amount Represents The Additions On Account Of Cash Deposits With The B Ha Rat Co-Op. Bank Ltd. The Appellant Humbly Prays That The Said Addition Be Deleted. 4. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred On Facts, In Law & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Confirming Addition Of Rs.10,91,600/- As Unexplained Cash Credits U/S. 68 Of The Income Tax Act To The Returned Income. The Said Amount Represents The Additions On Account Of Cash Deposits Of Rs.6,71,600/- & Rs.4,20,000/- Credited To The Account Held With Hindustan Co-Op. Bank Ltd. The Appellant Humbly Prays That The Said Addition Be Deleted.

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

erred on facts, in law and in the circumstances of the case in rejecting the application under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidence. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts, in law and in the circumstances of the case in confirming addition of Rs.1,61,887/- as Unexplained

Altran Technologies India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2904/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2904/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Altran Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., C/O Ernst & Young Llp, The Deputy Ground & 1St Floor, Commissioner Of Income ‘A’ Wing, Divyasree Chambers, Tax, Vs. #11, O’ Shaughnessy Road, Circle – 1 (1)(1), Langford Gardens, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aaaca7125R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 31/10/2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Altran Technologies India Private Limited (The 'Appellant') Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Id. Ao') Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The 'Act') Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel (`Drp') On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C

additional ground no. 21. Accordingly application dated 15/07/2019 stands allowed. 12. The assessee has also raised application dated 25/06/2020, under Rule 29 seeking admission of additional evidence. It is submitted that the additional evidence pertain to a certificate issued by the CA to establish the authenticity of segmental financial details

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1513/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Bpl Ltd., Circle – 1(1)(2), 11Th Km, Bannerghatta Road, Arakere, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aaacb 9461 B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sheethal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133(6)Section 41(1)Section 74

date of completion of assessment. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the revenue requested for admission of additional evidence in form of reply received from M/s Anushka Business Consulting u/s 133(6) of the IT Act, 1961 confirming that the debts pertaining

ITO (It) 2 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Sandeep Dhirajlal Dhakan, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6755/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Ao Without Any Reasonable Cause & Despite Being Given Sufficient Opportunities?" (B) "Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Accepting Additional Evidence Is Not Correct As Per Judgment Of The Delhi High Court In Case Of M/S. Manish Build Well (P) Ltd. (204Taxmann 106(Delhi) 2. "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Addition U/S. 68 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Cannot Be Made In This Case, Because The Ao Has Not Made Addition U/S. 68, But Has Made The Addition As An Unexplained Investment Which Is Subject Matter Of Section 69 Of The I.T. Act, 1 961 3. "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Source Of Investment Amounting To Rs. 25.37 Crs. In M/S. Rajesh Exports Ltd. By The Assessee Lies In Dubai On 2 Shri Sandeep Dhirajlal Dhakan

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 147Section 68Section 69

evidence in as much as assessee was NRI and there was some issues regarding service of notices to the assessee. Moreover, after admission of additional evidence the same has been forwarded to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer on merits of the same has also commented upon. Hence

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax - 33 (1), Mumbai vs. Cnp Cotton, Mumbai

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

ITA 6477/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit-33(1), M//S Cnp Cotton, Room No. 711, C-12, Pratyakshkar B/50, Cotton Exchange, Near Bhavan, B.K.C., Bandra, Cotton Green Railway Station, Vs. Mumbai-400051. Cotton Green (East), Mumbai-400033. Pan No. Aaifc 5376 P Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Sunil A. Umap, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr. Ankur Shah, Ar Date Of Hearing : 31/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Ankur Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sunil A. Umap, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

Therefore, the addition, in my considered opinion is not warranted. 4.12 During the appellate proceedings, the assessee filed application for admission of additional evidence on 14.09.2017 as mentioned above. The A caused enquiries and reported as under: "The additional evidence produced before the Ld..CIT(A), Mumbai was declaration