DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. DARSHAN SATISH GHODAWAT, JAYSINGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2891/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 May 2026AY 2023-244 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules by not providing the AO an opportunity to examine the additional evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, the order was set aside for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 1 crore under Section 68 for unexplained cash credit, as the assessee failed to provide the bank statement and return of income of the creditor to the AO. However, these documents were later filed before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to examine it as per Rule 46A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Naveen K. Rander &
For Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), (NFAC) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for AY. 2023-24 on 22-09-2025, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 27-03-2025. Assessee filed a C.O. No. 19/PUN/2026 in support of the order of the Ld.CIT(A).

2.

The Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as under:

ITA No. 2891/PUN/2025 & C.O. No. 19/PUN/2026

3.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. For the sake of convenience, both the appeals were heard together. In this case, assessee had filed return of income for AY. 2023-24 on 28-12-2023. Assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny. During the scrutiny proceedings, it was observed by the AO that the assessee has taken Rs. 1 crore from Mr. Rahil Shaikh. Assessee was asked to prove identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the creditor. The AO also issued notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act to Mr. Rahil Shaikh, asking him to file confirmation along with bank statement. It is mentioned in the assessment order that Mr. Rahil Shaikh has not filed any reply. After considering the reply of the assessee, AO made addition u/s. 68 of the Act for Rs. 1 crore. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) allowed assessee’s appeal.

4.

In this case admittedly, assessee had not filed copy of bank statement and return of income of Mr. Rahil Shaikh before the AO.

ITA No. 2891/PUN/2025 & C.O. No. 19/PUN/2026

Admittedly, the said documents were filed before the Ld.CIT(A). The Authorised Representative of the assessee in his written submission has admitted these facts. The relevant paragraph of the said written submission is scanned and reproduced as under:

It is also observed that Ld.CIT(A) had not called for remand report from the AO with reference to these documents, which were not filed before the AO.

5.

Ld.AR has vehemently objected to the Revenue’s appeal. Ld.AR submitted that all facts were verified by the AO hence, there is no need for any remand report. Ld.AR relied on the following case law:

i. DCIT vs. Techno Industries, ITA No. 660/Ahd/2025; ii. ITO vs. Dahyalal G. Jiwani, 182 taxmann.com 498; iii. PCIT vs. Arora Iron and Steel Rolling Mills P. Ltd., 158 taxmann.com 29

6.

In this case, admittedly additional evidence was filed before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) has not followed the procedure laid down under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The Ld.CIT(A) has not provided an opportunity to the AO. The case law relied by the Ld.AR are distinguishable on facts. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) has violated Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order u/s. 250 of the Act to the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Since we have set aside the order u/s. 250 of the Act for denovo adjudication, we do not intend to adjudicate on merits of the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed, unadjudicated.

ITA No. 2891/PUN/2025 & C.O. No. 19/PUN/2026

C.O. No. 19/PUN/2026

7.

In the C.O., the assessee has supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A). Since we have set aside the order u/s. 250 of the Act to the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication, the grounds of appeal raised in the C.O. becomes academic in nature and hence the same is dismissed unadjudicated.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the C.O. filed by the assessee is dismissed as unadjudicated.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 22nd May, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 22-05-2026 TNMM

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अपील र्थी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 2. 3. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →