What did the Tribunal hold?

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

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

What were the issues?

Whether additional evidence filed before the ITAT should be admitted and whether the lower appellate authority properly considered all documents before arriving at a conclusion.

Uttamchand Jain, Balod vs DCIT | s.250(4), 250(6) | ITAT Raipur 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CA

For Respondent: Shri CH. Rajeswara Reddy, Sr. DR

Hearing: 21.05.2026Pronounced: 25.05.2026

आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 22.08.2025 for the assessment year 2017-18 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

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 according to the Ld. Counsel, such additional evidences are substantially relevant to decide the tax liability in the hands of the assessee. That since due to valid reasons, these evidences were not filed before the Revenue Authorities, the Ld. Counsel made this specific prayer by filing an application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 for admission of these additional evidences. The said application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 is extracted as follows:

3 Uttamchand Jain, Balod Vs. DCIT-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No. 623/RPR/2025

4 Uttamchand Jain, Balod Vs. DCIT-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No. 623/RPR/2025

5 Uttamchand Jain, Balod Vs. DCIT-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No. 623/RPR/2025

We find that similar issue has been dealt with by the ITAT, Division 3. Bench, Raipur in the case of Shri Shyam Oil Extractions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO/ACIT-2(1), ITA No.339/RPR/2025 & others, dated 05.02.2026 wherein the it was held and observed as follows: “11. In this context further, a prayer has been made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that these additional evidences may be admitted by the Tribunal to protect interest of justice and accordingly, the Ld. Counsel has filed an application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 which is extracted as follows:

6 Uttamchand Jain, Balod Vs. DCIT-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No. 623/RPR/2025

7 Uttamchand Jain, Balod Vs. DCIT-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No. 623/RPR/2025

8 Uttamchand Jain, Balod Vs. DCIT-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No. 623/RPR/2025

12.

Further, we find that the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Manoj Kumar Jain Vs. ITO, TAXC No.61 of 2025, order dated 07.04.2025 has held that the ITAT has committed

9 Uttamchand Jain, Balod Vs. DCIT-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No. 623/RPR/2025

grave legal error in rejecting the application without considering the fact as to whether the documents filed by the assessee are required for just and proper disposal of the appeal in light of Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules. In the said referred judgment, additional evidences were filed for admission before the Tribunal whereas, in the case of the assesse additional evidences were filed before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) which he had rejected. 13. We have also gone through the reasons recorded in the petition filed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee as to why these evidences have been filed as additional evidences for the first time before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and we do not find any malafide conduct on the part of the assessee. At the same time, the Ld. CIT-DR has not brought on record any evidence/document opposing the plea of the assessee and rather, fairly conceded that in the greater interest of justice, the matter needs to be revisited by the first appellate authority considering all these additional evidences filed on record in compliance to Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, 1962. 14. Having heard the submissions of the parties herein, considering the documents on record and as per directives of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we are of the view that firstly, any quasi-judicial authority shall have to consider all the documents on record before arriving at a conclusion so that there is clear reasoning in the order itself which reveals that the said authority has arrived at a such conclusion. Secondly, Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, 1962 shall be complied with so that ground report can be obtained from the A.O regarding all those additional evidences which were filed by the assessee. Thirdly, no prejudice is caused to the revenue if the matter is remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) for complying with Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, 1962 regarding the said additional evidences. In view thereof, we set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and remand the matter back to his file while admitting the additional evidences in terms with Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, 1962 and having admitted the said additional evidences, we direct the Ld. CIT(Appeals) to adjudicate the matter denovo while complying with the principles of natural justice. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) shall in compliance to Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, 1962 call for a remand report from the A.O and pass a speaking order considering all the additional evidences/documents filed by the assessee on record in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. 15. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.339/RPR/2025 for A.Y. 2016-17 is allowed for statistical purposes.”

10 Uttamchand Jain, Balod Vs. DCIT-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No. 623/RPR/2025

On the same parity of reasoning, we admit the additional evidences and remand the same to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for necessary compliance in terms with Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules 1962. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall pass a speaking order in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act after calling for a remand report from the A.O on these additional evidences. The assessee shall also respond to the hearing notices and represent his case on merits before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall comply with the principles of natural justice.

That as per above terms, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; �दनांक / Dated : 25th May, 2026. SB, Sr. PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� /The Appellant. 2. ��यथ� /The Respondent. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर ब�च, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File.

11 Uttamchand Jain, Balod Vs. DCIT-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No. 623/RPR/2025

आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, Samiran Bera, Sr. PS, ITAT, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary Raipur आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. Digitally signed by Samiran Bera, Sr. PS, ITAT, Raipur Date: 2026.05.25 16:22:16 +05'30'

UTTAMCHAND JAIN, BALOD,BALOD vs. DCIT-1(1), RAIPUR (ERST DCIT-3(1), RAIPUR), RAIPUR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments