ITO, SHAHJAHANPUR vs. DHARAM VIR SINGH, SHAHJAHANPUR

ITA 670/LKW/2025Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 July 2026AY 2017-186 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine it or rebut it, as required by Rule 46A(3). Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,67,10,000/- as unexplained money. The CIT(A) deleted this addition after admitting additional evidence from the assessee. The Revenue appealed this deletion.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidence without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine or rebut it, violating procedural rules.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE- & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA:A.M.

(A) This appeal has been filed by revenue against the impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.08.2025, for the AY 2017-18. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “(i). Law and on facts of the case by giving relief of Rs. 1,67,10,000/- by deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer who has made the addition after recording the detailed reasons for doing so in length in the order itself.

(ii). Law and on facts of the case by deleting addition of Rs. 1,67,10,000/- after admitting the additional evidences given by the asse

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.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →