INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL vs. KALPESH RAMESH KALEKAR , KARJAT

We have heard Ld. DR and perused the records. It is observed that on earlier occasions i.e. on 05.03.2026 and 22.04.2026 no one appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment letter has been filed. Similarly, today on

In this case, the Revenue has raised only one ground regarding the violation of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules. We have perused the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 19.08.2025 and observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has admitted copy of bank statement, copy of purchase agreement, certificate issued by the local Government Officer specifying the distance, closure certificate. These facts are mentioned in para 9.4 and 9.5 of the Ld. CIT(A)’s order. In this case, there was no compliance before the Assessing Officer (AO) and accordingly, the assessment order was passed ex-parte. However, as mentioned above, the Ld. CIT(A) has admitted the additional evidence and directed the AO to delete the addition.

As per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, it is mandatory for the Ld. CIT(A) to record the reasons for admission of additional evidences. As per Rule 46A it is mandatory for the Ld. CIT(A) to provide opportunity to the AO to rebut the submission of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has not recorded any specific reason for admission of additional evidences. The Ld. CIT(A) has not provided any opportunity to the AO. Therefore, there is violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. Thus, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee and AO.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose.