What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the NFAC's approach of rejecting additional evidence on a technical plea was unsustainable, especially after calling for remand proceedings. The additional evidence should have been admitted.

The assessee appealed against an order of the NFAC. A key ground raised was the non-admission of evidence filed under Rule 46A. The AO had objected to the admission of this evidence on technical grounds.

What were the issues?

Whether additional evidence filed under Rule 46A should be admitted by the appellate authority, and the proper procedure for handling such evidence during remand proceedings.

Vineet Pratap Sharma vs Circle 22(2) | ITAT Delhi 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, DELHI

Before: SHRI M BALAGAESH & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

For Appellant: CA Sh. Siddharth Malhotra, Adv

Hearing: 12.05.2026Pronounced: 22.07.2026

P a g e | 1 ITA No.4597/Del/2025 Mukesh Bansal HUF Through its Karta Vineet Pratap Sharma (AY: 2020-21) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGAESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4597/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Mukesh Bansal HUF Vs. Dy. CIT, Circle 2(2) through its Karta Vineet CR Building Pratap Sharma, 3/80, Ram Delhi – 110002 Gali, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara – 110032 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: APKPS9667J Appellant .. Respondent

Appellant by : Sh. Yogesh Harjai, CA Sh. Siddharth Malhotra, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing 12.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement 22.07.2026

O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 27.05.2025 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter

P a g e | 2 ITA No.4597/Del/2025 Mukesh Bansal HUF Through its Karta Vineet Pratap Sharma (AY: 2020-21) referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in DIN & Order No : ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076488302(1) arising out of the assessment order dated 12.09.2022 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by NFAC, Delhi, for AY: 2020- 21.

On hearing both sides we find that amongst other grounds on merits assesse has raised a ground that assessee’s evidence filed under Rule 46A have not been admitted in accordance with law. Ld. DR has though opposed this plea we find that the issue involved is the examination of genuineness of unexplained loans and AO’s response to additional evidence by way of a remand report was called, however, AO had objected to the admission of the additional evidences on the basis of separate application under Rule 46A has not been filed. We find that ld. CIT(A) once called for remand proceedings then such a technical plea should not have been become basis to reject the additional evidences. At the same time, ld. CIT(A) observes that during remand proceedings AO has noted that submissions and evidences filed were already considered by the AO during assessment proceedings and NFAC has sustained impugned order of AO. We are of the considered view that the

P a g e | 3 ITA No.4597/Del/2025 Mukesh Bansal HUF Through its Karta Vineet Pratap Sharma (AY: 2020-21) approach of NFAC cannot be sustained in law as assesse intends to file documentary evidences in the form of confirmation, Pan details, bank statement, ITR, financial particulars and other supporting evidences of loan creditors. AO had observed in para 4.5.1 that no ITR, bank statements of lenders were submitted and that became ground for doubting the transaction.

In the light of aforesaid the additional evidences deserves to be admitted. Accordingly, admitting the additional evidence the issue on merits as well as law are restored to files of ld. CIT(A) to give fresh opportunity of hearing to the assesse and pass order afresh.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (M Balaganesh) (Anubhav Sharma) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 22.07.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS

P a g e | 4 ITA No.4597/Del/2025 Mukesh Bansal HUF Through its Karta Vineet Pratap Sharma (AY: 2020-21) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITAT NEW DELHI

VINEET PRATAP SHARMA,DELHI vs. CIRCLE 22(2), 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