SANDEEP ARORA,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-55(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4958/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 June 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed for statistical purposes

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the NFAC had entirely overlooked the assessee's application for additional evidence. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the NFAC for a fresh decision, with a specific direction to consider and dispose of the assessee's Rule 46A application.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an order from the NFAC for AY 2016-17. During the hearing, it was revealed that the assessee had filed an application under Rule 46/46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, seeking to submit additional evidences, but the NFAC failed to consider or adjudicate on this application.

What were the issues?

Whether the First Appellate Authority (NFAC) erred by not considering the assessee's application for additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

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 Rakesh Sehgal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. DR
Hearing: 26.06.2025Pronounced: 26.06.2025

Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sandeep Arora, Vs ITO, 113, Vigyan Vihar, Ward-55(1), Delhi – 110 092. Delhi. PAN: AAJPA7285L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Sehgal, CA Revenue by : Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 26.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.06.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 28.08.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi for AY 2016-17.

2.

At the time of hearing, it came up that the assessee has filed an application under Rule 46 before the ld. First Appellate Authority. However, the same has not at all been taken into consideration by the NFAC at the time of passing the impugned order. The fact of filing of the additional evidences along with the application could not be disputed by the ld. DR as is also established by a stamp dated 4th March, 2020 on the copy of application provided at page 1 of the paper book. Although the ld. AR has impressed upon the relevance of the application, however, it will be appropriate to determine the relevance by the NFAC as the NFAC has completely failed to take note of the application and adjudicate on it.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →