What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the issue back for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to file a reply before the CIT(A), and the CIT(A) was instructed to strictly comply with Rule 46A for admitting or rejecting additional evidence.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution. The assessee had not produced evidence before the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) would have to consider Rule 46A regarding the admission of evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) correctly dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A.

Moontree Tieup Pvt. Ltd. vs I.T.O., Ward - 4(1) | ITAT Kolkata 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate

For Respondent: Md. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT-DR

Hearing: 03.08.2026Pronounced: 03.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.961/Kol/2026 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Moontree Tieup Pvt. Ltd. ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata

C/o Subash Agarwal & Vs Associates, Advoctes Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2nd Floor, Kol- 700069. (PAN: AAHCM6440L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue by : Md. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 03.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 03.08.2026

ORDER Per George Mathan, JM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.CIT(A), Kolkata-2/14123/2015-16 dated 22.01.2026 for the assessment year 2012-13.

Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AR represented on behalf of the assessee and Md. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT-DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

ITA No.961/Kol/2026

A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) clearly shows that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of non- prosecution. It is to be mentioned here that as no evidences have been produced by the assessee before the Assessing Officer, obviously the ld. CIT(A) would have to consider applicability of provisions of rule 46A. Thus, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside and the issue is remanded before him. Since the assessee could file reply in respect of issues raised by the Ld. AO, the assessee is also directed to file reply before the Ld. CIT(A) which, being in the nature of additional evidence, the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to strictly comply with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and record reasons for the admission or rejection of the same as required in sub-rule (2) thereof. The Ld. AO shall also be granted an opportunity of being heard as per Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules. For ready reference, Rule 46A is reproduced as under:

“46A. (1) The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals), any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the course of proceedings before the Assessing Officer, except in the following circumstances, namely :— (a) where the Assessing Officer has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted ; or (b) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence which he was called upon to produce by the Assessing Officer ; or (c) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing before the Assessing Officer any evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal ; or

ITA No.961/Kol/2026

(d) where the Assessing Officer has made the order appealed against without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence relevant to any ground of appeal. (2) No evidence shall be admitted under sub-rule (1) unless the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals) records in writing the reasons for its admission. (3) The Joint Commissioner] (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall not take into account any evidence produced under sub-rule (1) unless the Assessing Officer has been allowed a reasonable opportunity— (a) to examine the evidence or document or to cross-examine the witness produced by the appellant, or (b) to produce any evidence or document or any witness in rebuttal of the additional evidence produced by the appellant. (4) Nothing contained in this rule shall affect the power of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals) to direct the production of any document, or the examination of any witness, to enable him to dispose of the appeal, or for any other substantial cause including the enhancement of the assessment or penalty (whether on his own motion or on the request of the Assessing Officer) under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 251 or the imposition of penalty under section 271.” 4. With these directions, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 03/08/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [George Mathan] लेखा सदस्य/Accountant Member न्याययक सदस्य/Judicial Member Dated: 03/08/2026 RS

ITA No.961/Kol/2026

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent – 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),

//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches

MOONTREE TIEUP PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 4(1), KOLKATA

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