GOPAL SIVAKUMAR,TRICHY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, TRICHY
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, including affidavits and bank statements, for substantial justice. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration of these evidences and to obtain a remand report from the AO.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in providing loan leads and earning commission, filed a return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) made significant additions due to the assessee's inability to fully furnish details regarding credit card purchases and commission payments. The CIT(A) confirmed these additions.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee's inability to provide complete documentation to the lower authorities warrants the admission of additional evidence before the Tribunal and a remand for fresh consideration.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & MS. PADMAVATHY.S
आदेश / O R D E R
PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 03.02.2026 for Assessment Year (AY) 2023-24.
ITA No.2831/Chny/2026 Gopal Sivakumar :- 2 -:
The assessee is an individual and is engaged in the business providing leads of eligible loan applicants to one Mr. T. Shaktivel who is the authorized agent of HDFC Bank. The assessee receives commission on fixed percentage. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2023-24 on 25.11.2023 declaring total income of Rs.4,86,620/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The AO called on the assessee to furnish various details towards credit card purchases and commission payments etc. Since the assessee could not provide the details called for fully, the A.O completed the assessment assessing the income at Rs.26,11,417/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). Even before the CIT(A), the assessee did not furnish proper details substantiating the source and the genuineness of the impugned additions and therefore the CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the A.O. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the assessee could not file the documentary evidence called for by the lower authorities due to lack of proper advice and support from the tax consultant. The Ld. AR filed a petition under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules for admissions of additional evidence in the form of affidavits from various parties, bank statements, PAN and Aadhar details of parties, etc. since the additional evidence now submitted goes to the route of the impugned additions made by the lower authorities in the interest of justice, we admit the same for substantial justice. Considering that the contentions of the assessee regarding source for credit card payments and other impugned additions need to be verified factually based on the evidences now submitted by the assessee, we
ITA No.2831/Chny/2026 Gopal Sivakumar :- 3 -:
remit the appeal back to the CIT(A) for consideration afresh. We direct the CIT(A) to consider the additional evidence now submitted and called for a remand report from the AO as may be required to decide the issue in accordance with law. Needless to say, that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 03rd day of September, 2026 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी. वक�) (पदमावती यस) (ABY. T. Varkey) (Padmavathy.S) लेखा सद�य /Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य / Judicial Member चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 03rd September, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S EJTADA Digitally signed by EJTADA DURGA NARESH आदेश क� ��त!ल"प अ#े"षत/Copy to: DURGA Date: 2026.09.04 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant NARESH 17:46:14 +05'30' 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Radheshyam Bhoi vs. The Comnr. Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 2 Nov 2026
- Dharmajit Mishra vs. The Comnr. Of CT. And GST, OdishaOrissa · 2 Nov 2026
- Tapan Kumar Sahu vs. The Comnr. CT. And GST, OdishaOrissa · 2 Nov 2026
- Sanjeet Kumar Bagh vs. The Comn. CT. And GST, OdishaOrissa · 2 Nov 2026
- Rakesh Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 2 Nov 2026