SACHIN GOEL,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD 4(1), GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4760/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 July 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed in haste and additional evidence was left unconsidered. Thus, it was appropriate to admit the additional evidence and restore the issues to the AO for a fresh opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee preferred an appeal against the order dated 26.09.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC. The AO issued a notice requiring the assessee to file certain evidences, and later the impugned assessment order was passed on 06.12.2019. The assessee filed an application for additional evidence which was not considered.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order was passed without considering the submissions and additional evidence filed by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES: G : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Deepanshu Jain, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Hearing: 01.07.2025Pronounced: 09.07.2025

Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sachin Goel, Vs ITO, C/o DS Legal & Associates, Ward-4(1), B-50, LGF, south Extn. II, Gurgaon. New Delhi – 110 049. PAN: AJXPG0006E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Deepanshu Jain, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 01.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 09.07.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 26.09.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC.

2.

At the time of hearing, it was pointed out by the ld. AR that the impugned order has been passed by not taking into consideration the submissions and evidences. Although the ld. DR has defended the impugned order, we find that the AO had issued a notice dated 01.12.2019 requiring the assessee to file certain evidences and fixed the date of hearing as 16.12.2019.

However, the impugned assessment order was passed on 06.12.2019 itself. Further, on 03.06.2024, the assessee filed an application for additional evidence u/r 46A of the Income-Rules, 1962. However, the same has also not been considered.

3.

In the light of the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that the assessment order was passed in haste and additional evidences have been left out unconsidered. Thus, it is an appropriate case to admit the additional evidences of the assessee. The issues on merits as well as on law are restored to the files of the AO to give a fresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee for filing submissions and evidences and to pass the order afresh in accordance with the law. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →