← 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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Superstar Agency Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5832/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

challenged by the Department in the case of Stylish Construction Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y. 2012-13. v) Department’s Ground challenging the alleged admission of additional evidence by the Ld. C.I.T(A) without giving opportunity to the Ld. A.O in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 – challenged

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sur Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5831/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

challenged by the Department in the case of Stylish Construction Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y. 2012-13. v) Department’s Ground challenging the alleged admission of additional evidence by the Ld. C.I.T(A) without giving opportunity to the Ld. A.O in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 – challenged

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Stylish Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5744/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

challenged by the Department in the case of Stylish Construction Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y. 2012-13. v) Department’s Ground challenging the alleged admission of additional evidence by the Ld. C.I.T(A) without giving opportunity to the Ld. A.O in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 – challenged

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sukhna Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

ITA 5742/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

challenged by the Department in the case of Stylish Construction Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y. 2012-13. v) Department’s Ground challenging the alleged admission of additional evidence by the Ld. C.I.T(A) without giving opportunity to the Ld. A.O in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 – challenged

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sukhna Steel Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5741/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

challenged by the Department in the case of Stylish Construction Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y. 2012-13. v) Department’s Ground challenging the alleged admission of additional evidence by the Ld. C.I.T(A) without giving opportunity to the Ld. A.O in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 – challenged

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sunlight Tour and Travels Pvt. Ltd., Sahibabad

ITA 5740/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

challenged by the Department in the case of Stylish Construction Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y. 2012-13. v) Department’s Ground challenging the alleged admission of additional evidence by the Ld. C.I.T(A) without giving opportunity to the Ld. A.O in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 – challenged

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sintex Consumers Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 5736/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

challenged by the Department in the case of Stylish Construction Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y. 2012-13. v) Department’s Ground challenging the alleged admission of additional evidence by the Ld. C.I.T(A) without giving opportunity to the Ld. A.O in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 – challenged

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Supreme Placement Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5650/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

challenged by the Department in the case of Stylish Construction Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y. 2012-13. v) Department’s Ground challenging the alleged admission of additional evidence by the Ld. C.I.T(A) without giving opportunity to the Ld. A.O in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 – challenged

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Angel Cement Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

ITA 4691/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

challenged by the Department in the case of Stylish Construction Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y. 2012-13. v) Department’s Ground challenging the alleged admission of additional evidence by the Ld. C.I.T(A) without giving opportunity to the Ld. A.O in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 – challenged

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Technico Industries Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 5204/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Technico Industries Pvt. Ltd., Circle-25(1), 103, Pratap Bhawan, Cr Building, Ip Estate, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. Near Indian Express Building, New Delhi. Pan: Aaact4445P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aditya Kumar, Ca & Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Mrs Aashna Paul, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.03.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 31St March, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-9, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Sheet Metal Components & Tools & Dies. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29Th September, 2011 Declaring ‘Nil’ Income. The Said Return Was Revised On 14Th September, 2012 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.3,61,68,075/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao, On Perusal Of The Balance Sheet Filed By The Assessee, Noted That The Assessee Company Has Issued 14,72,000 Equity Shares At A Premium Of Rs.115. From The Various Details Furnished By The Assessee, The Ao Noted That The Assessee Has Issued Shares To The Following Persons/Parties:-

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Mrs Aashna Paul, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)

needs to be judged objectively by considering the entire gamut of facts surrounding the case. 17. The assessee also filed an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A in respect of unsecured loans obtained from parties including M/s ARG Auto Components Pvt. Ltd. It was submitted ... assessee and the application filed under Rule 46A to the AO for her comments. The AO, in her comments, objected to the admission of additional evidences. Further, the remand report which was given by the AO was confronted by the CIT(A) to the assessee. After considering the remand report

Pslr Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeal is disposed off in accordance with aforesaid

ITA 1414/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Tapas Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Atique Ahmed, Sr. DR
Section 194CSection 40

that the Ld. CIT(A) has not commented on it. We also find that vide letter dated 14/07/2014 the assessee made application for admission of additional evidence during appellate proceedings before Ld. CIT(A). However, on perusal of order of Ld. CIT(A), we find that she has not made

Rajan Govil, New Delhi vs. Act Circle-Int. Tax-1(3)(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6157/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 68

assessee during the assessment proceedings. The Ld. AR further submitted that the CIT(A) also has ignored the application under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. AR submitted that the additional evidence may be admitted and the matter may be remanded back

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hermes India Retails & Distributors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 4315/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

parties appeared before the Tribunal through Video Conferencing facility and filed papers electronically. 4. The first ground of the appeal is against admission of additional evidences by the Learned CIT(A). Before us, the Learned Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has admitted additional evidences in violation ... submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material, including the finding of the Learned CIT(A) on admissibility of additional evidences. The Ld. CIT(A) in para 4.1 has referred that additional evidences produced by the assessee in paper-books 1 to 5 were

CIT vs. Arts Beauty Exports

ITA - 79 / 2012HC Delhi17 Sept 2012
Section 10BSection 260A

Assessing Officer. 10. The Assessing Officer vide letter dated 19th March, 2010 sent the remand report in which he objected to the admissibility of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. He doubted the genuineness of the evidence obtained 2012:DHC:5789-DB ITA Nos.79 ... things in fulfillment of one of the conditions of Section 10B(2). It is also contended that the Tribunal erroneously approved the admission of additional evidence by the CIT(Appeals) and it did not follow the procedure laid down by Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and that

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Betterways Finance & Leasing P.Ltd

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

ITA - 995 / 2009HC Delhi24 May 2011
Section 46

interest which had accrued thereupon. 6. This Court in CIT v. Hewlett Packard India (P) Ltd., 314 ITR 55 (Del.) has held that admissibility of additional evidence by CIT(A) would not give rise to any substantial question of law, provided the CIT(A) or the Tribunal had not acted ... wrong principle. 7. Thus, insofar as admission of additional evidence is concerned, it was within the discretion of the CIT(A) to admit the said evidence and we find that in the instant case, the said discretion has not been exercised improperly or against the provisions

CIT vs. Text Hundred India Pvt Ltd

ITA - 2077 / 2010HC Delhi14 Jan 2011

present case the reason which was given by the assessee in support of its plea for admission of additional evidence was that the assessee could not produce these records before the lower authorities due to non- retrievability of e-mail on the date because of technological difficulties. This reason