SHRI MULANANSISHWAR SOUHARDA PATTIN SAHAKARI NIYAMITA BAGEWADI,BIJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIJAYPUR

ITA 2383/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 August 2026AY 2017-186 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding good cause for their non-submission earlier. However, since the lower authorities had not examined these documents and the assessee could not properly represent its case, the Tribunal remitted the entire issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee society sought to admit additional evidence, including cash books and balance sheets, before the ITAT. The assessee argued that these documents were crucial for deciding the case on merits and could not be produced before lower authorities due to staff unfamiliarity with e-proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether additional evidence can be admitted by the ITAT and if the case should be remitted to the AO for fresh assessment when the assessee could not represent its case properly before lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC’’BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

For Appellant: CA Ramesh V Mudhol, A.R

For Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Revenue

Hearing: 02.06.2026Pronounced: 10.08.2026

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 07.08.2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1079370582(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2017-18.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

ITA No.2383/Bang/2025 Shri MulanandishwarSouharda Pattin SahakariNiyamitaBagewadi Page 2 of 6

Before us, the assessee has filed an application dated 06.12.2025 under Rule 29 of the Income-Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 praying for admission of additional evidence by enclosing a paper book containing 26 pages enclosing therewith copy of cash book for the period 28.10.2016 to 02.01.2017, copy of audited balance sheet (in Kannada) & copy of English translated balance sheet. A copy of the application praying for admission of additional evidence dated 06.12.2025 is reproduced below for ease of reference and convenience:-

ITA No.2383/Bang/2025 Shri MulanandishwarSouharda Pattin SahakariNiyamitaBagewadi Page 3 of 6

ITA No.2383/Bang/2025 Shri MulanandishwarSouharda Pattin SahakariNiyamitaBagewadi Page 4 of 6

3.1 According to Rule 29 of the I.T. Rules, 1963¸ generally the parties to the appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence either oral or documentary before the Tribunal but if the Tribunal requires any document to be produced to enable it to pass orders or for any other substantial cause, or, if the income tax authorities have decided the case without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to adduce evidence either on points specified by them or not specified by them, the Tribunal for reasons to be recorded, may allow such document to be produced or may allow such evidence to be adduced. In the present case, the cash book, audited balance sheet could not be produced before the lower authorities as the staff of the assessee society was not conversant with the e-proceedings. Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee

ITA No.2383/Bang/2025 Shri MulanandishwarSouharda Pattin SahakariNiyamitaBagewadi Page 5 of 6 vehemently submitted that these additional evidences are crucial for deciding the issue on merits i.e. the sources of cash deposits into the bank account of the assessee. This being so, we find good and sufficient reason in not submitting the additional evidences before both the lower authorities. Accordingly, we admit these additional evidences as in our opinion these are essential for adjudication of the issue in the present appeal.

Now having admitted the additional evidences, we are of the considered opinion that these additional evidences are filed for the first time before this Tribunal and both the authorities below have no occasion to examine these additional evidences. Further, before us, both the parties fairly conceded that the assessee society could not represent its case before both the authorities below. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee vehemently submitted that the assessee society could not represent its case before the AO as the staff of the assessee was not conversant with e-proceedings, accordingly, all the notices issued by the AO went unattended & prayed to remit the entire issues in dispute to the file of the AO. This being so, in the interest of justice, equity & fair play & as requested by the ld. AR of the assessee, we deemed it fit & proper to remit entire issues in dispute to the file of the AO to decide a fresh in accordance with law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce all the additional evidences filed before us along with any other relevant documents/record/accounts to substantiate its claim or as may be required by the AO for the completion of the assessment proceedings. We make it clear that in case of further default, the assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. It is ordered accordingly.

ITA No.2383/Bang/2025 Shri MulanandishwarSouharda Pattin SahakariNiyamitaBagewadi Page 6 of 6

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 10th Aug, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Waseem Ahmed) (Keshav Dubey) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Bangalore, Dated 10th Aug, 2026. VG/SPS

Copy to:

The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →