ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. DALMIA CONTINENTAL PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad, Judicial Member & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member ITA No. 4440/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Vs Dalmia Continental Pvt. Ltd., Circle-7(1), 10, Daryaganj, Central Delhi, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACD3626J Assessee by: Sh. R. K. Mehta, C. A., Sh. K. C. Jha, C. A. & Sh. Nitin Rajput, C. A. Revenue by: Sh. N.K. Bansal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing:09.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 13.05.2026 ORDER Per Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member: The above captioned appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 29.05.2025, passed by CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for A.Y. 2017-18.

2 ITA No. 4440/Del/2025 Dalmia Continental Pvt. Ltd. assessee by deleting the addition made by the AO on account of disallowance of Expenses amounting to Rs. 35,40,140/-. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal.”

2.1 The department has also filed additional grounds vide letter dated 19.12.2025 which are as under: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in admitting additional documentary evidence submitted by the assessee for the first time during the appellate proceedings without calling for a mandatory remand report from the Assessing Officer and without recording any satisfaction as required under Rule 46A(1) of the Income-tax Rules,1962. The failure of the Ld. CIT(A) to comply with the procedure prescribed under Rule 46A(3) vitiates the appellate order. The omission to raise this ground in the original Form 36 was inadvertent, and since the issue is legal in nature. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal.” We first take up the additional legal ground raised by the Revenue.

3.1 Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Vide order dated 29.05.2025, ld. CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s appeal after examining the additional evidences submitted by the assessee. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal

3 ITA No. 4440/Del/2025 Dalmia Continental Pvt. Ltd. before the Tribunal. Besides the issues on merit, the Revenue has raised an additional ground regarding admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A without giving the AO an opportunity to give his submissions on the same.

4.1 On the other hand, ld. AR has submitted that details called for by the ld. AO were duly submitted. The assessee filed addition evidences before ld. CIT(A) to further strengthen his claims. The jurisdiction of ld. CIT(A) being co-terminus with AO, he was justified in considering the additional evidence and allowing relief to the assessee.

4 ITA No. 4440/Del/2025 Dalmia Continental Pvt. Ltd. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the assessee had filed certain additional evidences before the ld. CIT(A). There is no mention in the appellate order regarding any remand report sought from the AO by the ld. CIT(A). In view of the provisions of Rule 46A and in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Manish Buildwell (supra), we are of the considered view that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have sought a remand report from the AO before considering the additional evicences and allowing relief to the assessee on its basis. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to restore the appeal back to ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving requisite opportunity to the ld. AO to verify the additional evidence.