What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication, directing the assessee to file replies and the CIT(Appeals) to strictly comply with Rule 46A regarding admission of additional evidence.

The assessee failed to produce necessary documents before the CIT(Appeals), leading to ex parte orders. The assessee claimed they did not receive the notices and requested another opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) should grant an opportunity to the assessee to produce evidence when ex parte orders were passed due to non-compliance, and the proper procedure for admitting additional evidence.

Giriraj Kumar Bhaiya, Kolkata vs ACIT | ITAT Kolkata 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY

For Appellant: Shri Vikas Surana, AR

For Respondent: Shri Ambrish Mishra, Sr. DR

Hearing: 24.08.2026Pronounced: 24.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.2268 to 2273/Kol/2026 Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2014-15

Giriraj Kumar Bhaiya ACIT, Circle-33, Kolkata Vs 4A, Pollock Street, Kol- 700001. (PAN: ADYPB2608N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Vikas Surana, AR Revenue by : Shri Ambrish Mishra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 24.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 24.08.2026

ORDER Per Bench: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(Appeals)-26, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.CIT(A), Kolkata-9/10413/2017-18, CIT(A), Kolkata-9/10414/2017-18, CIT(A), Kolkata-9/10416/2017-18, CIT(A), Kolkata-9/10283/2015-16, CIT(A), Kolkata-9/10244/2016-17 and CIT(A), Kolkata-9/10729/2016-17 all dated 30.04.2026 for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2014-15.

ITA No.2268 to 2273/Kol/2026

Shri Vikas Surana, AR represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Ambrish Mishra, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

A perusal of the facts in the present appeal shows that the ld. CIT(A) has passed ex parte orders and the assessee failed to produce details/documents before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has prayed that another opportunity may be granted in so far as he had not received the notices. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in these appeals are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

It is to be mentioned here that as no evidences have been produced by the assessee before the Assessing Officer, obviously the ld. CIT(A) would have to consider applicability of provisions of rule 46A. Thus, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside and the issue is remanded before him for adjudication on merits. Since the assessee has not filed reply in respect of issues raised by the Ld. AO, the assessee is also directed to file reply before the Ld. CIT(A) which, being in the nature of additional evidence, the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to strictly comply with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and record reasons for the admission or rejection of the same as required in sub-rule (2) thereof. The Ld. AO shall also be granted an opportunity of being heard as per Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules. For ready reference, Rule 46A is reproduced as under:

ITA No.2268 to 2273/Kol/2026

“46A. (1) The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals), any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the course of proceedings before the Assessing Officer, except in the following circumstances, namely :— (a) where the Assessing Officer has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted ; or (b) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence which he was called upon to produce by the Assessing Officer ; or (c) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing before the Assessing Officer any evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal ; or (d) where the Assessing Officer has made the order appealed against without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence relevant to any ground of appeal. (2) No evidence shall be admitted under sub-rule (1) unless the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals) records in writing the reasons for its admission. (3) The Joint Commissioner] (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall not take into account any evidence produced under sub-rule (1) unless the Assessing Officer has been allowed a reasonable opportunity— (a) to examine the evidence or document or to cross-examine the witness produced by the appellant, or (b) to produce any evidence or document or any witness in rebuttal of the additional evidence produced by the appellant. (4) Nothing contained in this rule shall affect the power of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals) to direct the production of any document, or the examination of any witness, to enable him to dispose of the appeal, or for any other substantial cause including the enhancement of the assessment or penalty (whether on his own motion or on the request of the Assessing Officer) under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 251 or the imposition of penalty under section 271.”

ITA No.2268 to 2273/Kol/2026

With these directions, the issues in these appeals are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24/08/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Gopala Gurusamy] [George Mathan] लेखा सदस्य/Accountant Member न्याययक सदस्य/Judicial Member Dated: 24/08/2026 RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent – 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),

//True copy// By order Deputy Registrar, Kolkata Benches

GIRIRAJ KUMAR BHAIYA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 33, KOLKATA,, KOLKATA

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