← 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

Income Tax Officer, Ward 32(1), Kolkata vs. Satish Singh, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 449/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.449/Kol/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Years :2018-2019) Ito, Ward-32(1), Kolkata Vs Satish Singh, 5B/H/6, Shibtala Lane, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Dswps 6446 B (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) रधजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Sandip Sarkar, Jcit, Sr.Dr निर्धाररतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 01.01.2025For The Assessment Year2018-2019. 2. The Issue Raised In The Appeal Of Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) In Admitting The Additional Evidence Without Allowing Reasonable Opportunity To The Assessing Officer As Per Provisions Of Rule 46A Of It Rules, 1962 & Second Issue Is Against The Deletion Of Addition Of Rs.2,75,17,500/- As Made By The Ao U/S.40A(3) Of The Act In Respect Of Commission & Salary Paid By The Assessee During The Year. 3. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 16,36,550/-On 11/06/2019, The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 25.10.2019. Subsequently, Return Of The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Sarkar, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 40A(3)

very reasoned order and does not require any interference and we uphold the same. 8. Moreover, on the issue of admission of additional evidence, ld.CIT(A) has recorded a categorical finding that all the evidence were before the AO and the AO misappreciated the facts, therefore, the provision of Rule

Harish Banga, Hisar vs. Assessment Unit, New Delhi

In the result, both the substantial ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 4893/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2018-19 (Physical Hearing) Harish Banga, Assessment Unit, 264, Bank Colony, Hisar, Vs. Faceless Assessment Unit Haryana – 125001. Income Tax Department, Pan – Abqpb 8845 F New Delhi-110001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri H.K. Batra, Ca & Shri Naman Chawla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12 .2025 O R D E R Per : Pawan Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit (A) Dated 08.07.2025 Vide Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri H.K. Batra, CA &For Respondent: Shri Virender Kumar Singh, SR. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 56Section 57

verbal understanding with the Assessee. Since, such evidence could not be filed during assessment, now; the Assessee has filed application for admission of additional evidence. The additional evidences are relevant and essential to adjudicate the real controversy about the payment of commission for earning commission income. To support his submission ... Assessee furnished bank statement of Assessee. However, the other evidence could not be furnished by Assessee. Before Tribunal the Assessee filed application for admission of additional evidence. The Assessee furnished PAN, Aadhar Card, Bank Statement and Affidavit of Suman Devi. On perusal of such details I find that such details

Rajwant Kaur, Pehowa, Kurukshetra vs. ITO, Ward 3, Kurukshetra

In the result, the delay is condoned and the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1023/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Tribunal With A Delay Of 408 Days. Along With The Appeal, The Assessee Has Filed An Application Seeking Condonation Of Delay. In The Condonation Petition, The Assessee Has Explained That She Is A Farmer By Occupation, Residing In A Rural Area & Has Very Limited Knowledge Of Income Tax Laws As Well As Online Procedures. It Has Been Stated That She Was Not Aware Of The Requirement To Check Or Respond Through The Income-Tax E-Filing Portal & Came To Know About The Demand Only Upon Receipt Of A Physical Notice From The Department. Thereafter, She Immediately Sought Professional Assistance. The Delay, According To The Assessee, Is Wholly Unintentional & Caused Due To Circumstances Beyond Her Control.

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sachdeva, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 148

adjudicated the grounds on merits, nor has there been any consideration of the assessee’s request seeking admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A. 7. We have heard the rival contention and perused the material available on the record. In the present case we find that the assessee, being ... first appellate authority is required to pass a reasoned and speaking order on each ground raised and, wherever applicable, must examine the admissibility of additional evidence in accordance with Rule 46A. Since these requirements have not been fulfilled, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice will