What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that while the assessee may have had shortcomings in filing the new evidence under Rule 46A, the CIT(A) should have appreciated the attempt to submit supporting documents and potentially given an opportunity. The matter was set aside and remanded to the AO for fresh assessment.

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay, which was condoned by the ITAT. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 68,54,000/- on account of unexplained bank deposits. The CIT(A) refused to admit new evidence submitted by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in rejecting new evidence without providing an opportunity to the assessee to file it in the proper format. The need for a fresh assessment after examining the evidence.

Ajay Girotra vs ITO | s.250 | ITAT Delhi 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Adv & Shri Shaivam Yadav, Adv

For Respondent: Shri Balkrishan Gopal, Sr. DR

Hearing: 06.07.2026

ITA No.1724/DEL/2026 AJAY GIROTRA IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1724/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2015-16 AJAY GIROTRA, Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 25, Ram Vihar, Vikas Marg, Ward 59(2), Vikas Bhawan, Shakarpur, Delhi 110092. Near ITO, New Delhi, PAN No.AAPPG3546C Delhi 110002. Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Adv & Shri Shaivam Yadav, Adv. Revenue by Shri Balkrishan Gopal, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 06.07.2026 Pronouncement on 07.08.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. The ITAT Registry has reported that there is a delay of 49 days in the filing of this appeal. The assessee has filed a detailed application seeking condonation of delay. For the sake of brevity, the main points from such petition deserve to be briefly mentioned. It has been stated that after the appellate order dated 24.10.2025 was passed and no alert or intimation was received by the assessee. Thereafter, only while checking up on the ITBA Portal did the tax consultant notice that there was an appellate order against the assessee. It was also noticed that the e-mail containing the said order of Ld. CIT(A) was received in the junk folder. It is the submission that on becoming aware of this order the

ITA No.1724/DEL/2026 AJAY GIROTRA assessee immediately made arrangements for filing the present appeal before the ITAT.

1.1 Considering the reasons given in the said petition, we hereby condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

This appeal arises from order dated 24.10.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by Ld. NFAC.

2.1 In this case, the Ld.AO passed an order dated 20.02.2024 in more or less in an ex parte manner. It is seen that an addition of Rs.68,54,000/- has been made on account of deposits in bank accounts which were allegedly not satisfactorily explained.

2.2 The aggrieved assessee approached the CIT(A) where he filed considerable new evidence in an attempt to justify the deposits in his bank account. It is seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has declined to admit the new evidence and has affirmed the action of Ld. AO. In this regard, the noting in the impugned order at page 15 at (xxii) deserves to be noted. In brief, the Ld. CIT(A) has stated that the assessee did not file any application under Rule 46A and has also not given any plausible reason for not being able to file such evidence before the Ld. AO. On this basis, the new evidence was not accepted.

ITA No.1724/DEL/2026 AJAY GIROTRA 2.3 The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds challenging the action of Ld. CIT(A) and requesting for an opportunity for presenting the facts of his case.

Before us the Ld. AR took us through the orders of authorities below and stated that while it was true that satisfactory compliance was not made before the Ld. AO, but when the assessee attempted to submit the relevant documents in his support then the Ld. CIT(A) summarily rejected such a move. It was the prayer that the assessee may be given another chance to present the facts before the Ld. AO.

3.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

We have considered the submissions of Ld. AR/DR and have gone through the records before us. It is seen that the assessee admittedly presented considerable factual material before the Ld. CIT(A) but the same was rejected on the ground that the assessee had not filed a proper application under Rule 46A. It is felt that while there may have been some shortcoming in terms of there not being a proper application under Rule 46A, but the fact that the assessee was attempting to file the necessary documents in his support, should have been appreciated by the Ld.CIT(A) and perhaps an opportunity could have been given to the assessee for filing the new evidence in the required format. Be that as it may, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment after examining 3

ITA No.1724/DEL/2026 AJAY GIROTRA the evidences available with the assessee for justifying the impugned deposits. While the Ld.AO would give adequate opportunity of being heard the assessee would do well to avail of such opportunities.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 07.08.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 07.08.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

AJAY GIROTRA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 59(2), DELHI, DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments