What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities failed to examine the documents furnished by the assessee and noted factual discrepancies. The matter was restored to the AO for de novo assessment after considering the documents.

The assessee contended that the assessment order and CIT(A) order were passed without examining submitted documents. Specifically, the AO incorrectly stated the amount in the bayana receipt and claimed the agreement for sale was not submitted.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment and appellate orders were passed without proper examination of evidence submitted by the assessee, leading to factual errors.

Rashmi Madan vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY

PER SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Ludhiana [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 07.01.2026, for Assessment Year 2017-18.

Ms. Ragini Handa, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessment order and the order of CIT(A) have been passed without examining the documents furnished by the assessee. Referring to para 3 of the assessment order she submits that the amount mentioned by the Assessing Officer (AO) in the bayana receipt is wrong, the AO has mentioned the amount of Rs.20,05,000/-, whereas, the actual amount as per bayana receipt is Rs.25,00,000/-. She further pointed that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had furnished copy of sale deed and bayana receipts, the same were not examined by the AO. Further, the AO has wrongly mentioned in the assessment order that the assessee has not submitted copy of agreement for sale of property. The CIT(A) has upheld findings of the AO in a mechanical manner, without taking note of correct facts and without examining documents on record. The

ITA 2390/DEL/2026 RASHMI MADAN ld. Counsel prayed for restoring the matter to AO for making fresh assessment after considering documents furnished by assessee.

Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the department submits that the matter can be restored back to the AO for re-examination.

Both sides heard, orders of the lower authorities examined. A bare perusal of the assessment order reveals that the documents furnished by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings have not been examined by the AO. Further, there is factual discrepancy in mentioning the amount in the assessment order. Similarly, the CIT(A) while passing the impugned order has failed to consider the documents which were furnished by the assessee during assessment proceedings. Considering entire facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to restore this issue back to the AO for de novo examination. The assessee shall be at liberty to furnish fresh documents to support her contention. The AO after examining the documents furnished by assessee shall pass the assessment order denovo, after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on Wednesday the 24th of June, 2026.

Sd/- VIKAS AWASTHY JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi Dated: 29-Jun-2026

ITA 2390/DEL/2026 RASHMI MADAN Copy to: RASHMI MADAN, M-144, 2ND FLOOR, GURU HARKISHAN 1 NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110087, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 50(1), 2 CIVIC CENTRE, MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI-110002, DELHI 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

RASHMI MADAN,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 50(1), DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments