What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed details before the CIT(A) and this Tribunal that were not available to the AO. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration of the additional evidence.

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 12 days, which was condoned. The assessee submitted additional evidence before the CIT(A) which was rejected for not being filed before the AO and for not filing a specific application under Rule 46A.

What were the issues?

Whether additional evidence filed before the CIT(A) should be considered when it was not filed before the AO and without a proper application under Rule 46A.

Balu Rajkumar vs ACIT | ITAT Chennai 2026

Before: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI & MS. PADMAVATHY.S

Hearing: 04.06.2026Pronounced: 15.07.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ ए’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी यस यस िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� एवं सु�ी पदमावती यस, लेखा सद� के सम# BEFORE SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY.S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3209/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$/Assessment Year: 2023-24 Balu Rajkumar, Vs. Assistant Commissioner of 28, United India Colony, Income Tax, 1st Cross Street, Circle-1, Kodambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 024. [PAN: AAEPR-6604-D] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()थ'/Respondent) अपीलाथ' की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. T. Vasudevan, Advocate ()थ' की ओर से/Respondent by : Mr. L. Christopher Vasanth, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 04.06.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 15.07.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2023-24.

2 ITA No. 3209/Chny/2025 2. We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 12 days. The

assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons to condone the said

delay. On perusal of the same and upon hearing both the parties, we

find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide which really

prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time. Thus, delay of 12

days condoned.

At the outset, the ld.AR, Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate, submits that

the assessee filed additional evidence in the form of Form-36, and other

evidences confirming the transactions which are from pages 5 to 13 of

the paper book. Admittedly, the said evidences were not available

before the AO as well as the ld.CIT(A), which is evident from para no.6

of the impugned order. On perusal of Para-III in page no.4 of the

impugned order, it is noted that the assessee furnished the said

additional evidences before the ld.CIT(A), but however, which are not

considered for not filing before the AO. Further, it is noted that the said

additional evidences were rejected by the ld.CIT(A) for not filing any

application under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 by referring

Column no.12 to Form-35. The ld.AR submits that by mistake the

3 ITA No. 3209/Chny/2025 assessee wrongly mentioned that there was no additional evidences, but

however additional evidences were filed within proper application.

The ld.DR, Shri. L. Christopher Vasanth, JCIT, reported no

objection.

On perusal of the para 4(ii) in page no.3 of the impugned order, it is noted that the ld.CIT(A) recorded clearly that the assessee failed to furnish

any details such as challans of TDS deposits or Form-26Q, bank debit

entries reflecting deduction of TDS or deposit of the same to the

Government account. Further, on perusal of the paper book, we note that the assessee filed such details which are reflected in page no.3 of the paper

book. Thereby, we are of the considered opinion that this matter requires

examination by the AO taking into account the additional evidences as filed

before the ld.CIT(A) as well as this Tribunal. Thus, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of AO for a fresh consideration and pass order

taking into account additional evidences in respect of the addition made by

the AO on non-deduction of TDS. Thus, order of the ld.CIT(A) is set aside and grounds raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

4 ITA No. 3209/Chny/2025 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 15th July, 2026 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (एस. पदमावती) (यस यस �व�वने� र�व) (S. PADMAVATHY) (SS VISWANETHRA RAVI) लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य / Judicial Member

Chennai, Dated: 15.07.2026 JPV आदेश की (ितिलिप अ.ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ'/Appellant, 2.()थ'/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु//CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय (ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड$ फाईल/GF.

PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.07.20 16:40:26 +05'30'

BALU RAJKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, CHENNAI

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