PRAVEEN KUMAR BANSAL,BHIWANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWANI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that admitting additional evidence could render substantial justice. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment, with liberty to the assessee to produce documents.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal is against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed the appeal and an application for additional evidence. The assessee had not produced certain documents during assessment proceedings, leading to additions.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's application for admission of additional evidence and consequently dismissing the appeal?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:
The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 13/05/2024 for the Assessment Year 2015-16.
Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed on 11/05/2023 u/s 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making certain additions. The Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), wherein the Assessee also filed an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The said application for admission of additional evidence came to be dismissed and ultimately the Appeal of the Assessee came to be dismissed on 13/12/2024. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 13/05/2024, the Assessee preferred the present Appeal.
The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that during the assessmentproceedings the Assessee could not produce those documents, therefore, the Assessee filed an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) committed error in rejecting the application filed by the Assessee, which will go into the root into the matter and further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has also committed error in dismissing the Appeal, thus sought for allowing the appeal.
Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the Assessee who failed to produce any document before the A.O., has filed an application for admission of additional evidence and the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly rejected the application as the case of the Assessee was not falls in any of the criteria enumerated in Rule 46A of the Rules, therefore, the application filed by the Assessee for admission of additional evidence has been rightly rejected. Thus, submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) committed no error in dismissing the Appeal of the Assessee, therefore, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the Appeal of the Assessee deserves to be dismissed.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessee has not produced the requisite documents, which resulted in making the addition at the hands of the Assessee. Assessee has filed certain documents as the additional evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) in the first appeal. However, the said application has been dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A). Considering the above facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that, if the additional documents/evidence produced by the Assessee are admitted and decided the issue based on the submission and the documents produced by the Assessee, substantial justice would be render. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the A.O. for de-novo assessment with a liberty to the Assessee to produce all/any documents in support of the claim of the Assessee. Needless to say, the A.O. shall provide opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before passing the assessment orderin accordance with law. The Assessee is also directed to participate in assessment proceedings without fail.
In the result, the Appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026