VINAY KUMAR JAISWAL,SURAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS, AMBIKAPUR

ITA 188/RPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 July 2026AY 2018-1911 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and remanded the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication de novo. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to obtain a remand report from the AO and pass a speaking order.

What were the facts?

The assessee sought to admit additional evidence before the ITAT which was not filed before the lower authorities. The assessee had valid reasons for not filing the evidence earlier.

What were the issues?

Whether additional evidence filed before the appellate authority should be admitted and considered for proper adjudication of the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(4),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri Prasant Kumar Gupta, CA
For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 15.07.2026Pronounced: 15.07.2026

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 28.01.2026 for the assessment year 2018-19 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset even without going in to the merits of the matter submitted that he wants to make a prayer for admission of additional evidences which were not filed before the Revenue Authorities and ac

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →