M.K. CONSTRUCTIONS,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), MEERUT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) rejected additional evidence without proper consideration, which was vital for adjudication. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity to present its case and file necessary documents.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2017-18 was dismissed by the CIT(A) for not admitting additional evidence. The assessee argued that these documents were vital for adjudication.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidence filed under Rule 46A, and whether the addition made by the AO was arbitrary and based on suspicion without corroboration.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 68,Section 115BBE(1),Section 133(6),Section 234B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘H’ NEW DELHI
Before: SH. SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SH. KRINWANT SAHAY
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘H’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A. No.685/DEL/2026 (A.Y. 2017-18) M.K. Constructions DCIT 354, Krishna Puri, Distt. Vs. Circle – 3 (1) (1) Muzaffarnagar Meerut PAN No.AALFM3622R
Appellant by: None Respondent by : Sh. Sudip Majumdar, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing 06.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 06.07.2026
ORDER PER KRINWANT SAHAY AM Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC vide order dated 21.11.2025 for the A.Y. 2017-18. The grounds of appeal are as under :-
That on the facts, and in the circumstance of the case and the order Passed by Learned CIT (Appeal) u/s 250 of the Act is bad in Law. 2. That the addition of Rs. 3000000/- made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by Leamed CIT (A) is arbitrary unjustified 1 | P a g e
and contrary to the provisions of section 68/115 BBE (1) of I.T. Act.,
That some documents in support of unsecured Loan due to non-providing by those depositors being out of station, but not issued notice u/s 133(6) by Learned A.O. as per provisions of I.T. Act.
That the Learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the addition were made based on suspicion and conjecture without any corroboration evidence, contrary to the documentary evidence submitted by the Appellant.
That the Learned CIT (A) erred is not admitting additional evidence filed under rule 46 A of the Income Tax Rules, which was Vital for adjudication.
That disputed Tax at Rs. 2317500/- being above addition against Law and facts & circumstances in this case.
That the penal interest at Rs. 274791/- is wrongly charged u/s 234 B, while TDS/TCS already Prepaid by Appellant.
The Appellant craves Prays to allow it add, Amend, alter vary or withdraw any or all the above ground of Appeal before or at the time of hearing.
The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal by not admitting the additional evidences filed under rule 46A of the IT Rules. During the appellate proceedings before us it was found that the Ld. CIT(A) did not admit additional evidences which are vital in adjudication, therefore, in the written submission it was requested that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).
2 | P a g e
Per contra the Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
We have considered the findings given by the AO in the assessment order and the Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) on the basis of remand report given by the ld. AO has rejected additional evidences which in the opinion of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee are vital for adjudication. Therefore, keeping in view the natural justice to the assessee we here by remand this case back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to grant adequate opportunity to the assessee for hearing as required under law. The assessee is also at liberty to file all relevant papers/ details that it feels necessary for adjudication to the Ld. CIT(A). 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open Court on 06th July, 2026.
.
Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (KRINWANT SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBR Dated :06/07/2026 *Neha Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI
3 | P a g e
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026