Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) related to assessment year 2020-21. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the intimation order and that the CPC did not consider facts properly, disallowing ESI/PF and dividend income.
Held
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 29 and directed the AO to examine these documents and decide the issue in dispute. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
Whether the disallowance of ESI/PF and dividend income was justified and whether additional evidence should be admitted for examination by the AO.
Sections Cited
143(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Asstt. Year : 2020-21) B4S Solutions Private Limited, vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer 806, Eros Apartment, New Delhi 56, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 19 (PAN: AABCB4705D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Shantanu Verma, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 09.07.2025 ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP :
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-26, New Delhi relating to assessment year 2020-21.
At the time of hearing, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the intimation order, passed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the CPC did not consider the facts properly and judicially, thus not allowed the ESI/PF and dividend income amount, which is illegal, unjust and unlawful. He further submitted that assessee would like to disclose certain additional facts and evidences, which were not submitted previously. It was further submitted that there is certain arithmetic evaluations and interpretation of untouched documents, therefore, purely in the interest of justice and for the purpose of completing certain relevant calculations and analysis, hence, it was pleaded that the matter may be sent back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. He also filed an application for submission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules and submitted that these documents / evidences were never submitted before the lower tax authorities, which contain the ledger accounts, from the various clients of the assessee and needs to be examined thoroughly at the level of the Assessing Officer.
Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We find considerable cogency in the contention of the Ld. AR that the documents filed before the Tribunal under Rule 29 needs to be examined and verified at the level of the AO, hence, we admit the same and accordingly, direct the AO to examine the additional evidences filed by the assessee and then decide the issue in dispute, in accordance with law, on the anvil of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT in Civil Appeal No. 2833 of 2016.