INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. ANIL DHANPAL RAJMANE, KOLHAPUR

ITA 404/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 May 2026AY 2020-213 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the procedure laid down under Rule 46A by admitting additional evidence without providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine it. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the file of the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions made by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) had admitted additional evidence furnished by the assessee at the appellate stage without following the mandatory procedure under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence at the appellate stage without complying with Rule 46A and without providing the AO an opportunity to rebut it.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 46A

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 Vaibhav R. Chaugule

आदेश /ORDER

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for AY. 2020-21 on 13-11-2025, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 11-03-2025.

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

“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in admitting and relying upon additional evidences furnished by the assessee for the first time at the appellate stage, without complying with the mandatory provisions of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) failed to record reasons for admission of additional evidence as required under Rule 46A(2) and further failed to provide the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine, verify, or rebut such additional evidence, in contravention of Rule 46A(3). 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions without calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and causing prejudice to the interests of the Revenue.

ITA No. 404/PUN/2026

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Manish Buildwell (P) Ltd. (2011) 245 CTR 397 (Del), wherein it has been held that admission of additional evidence without granting the Assessing Officer an opportunity to rebut the same vitiates the appellate proceedings. 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the additions merely on the basis of explanations and documents furnished at the appellate stage, which were neither examined nor verified by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. 6. The appellant craves to add amend, alter or delete the above grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceeding before the Hon'ble Tribunal.”

In this case admittedly, no documents were filed during the assessment proceedings. It is also observed that the Ld.CIT(A) has admitted certain documents, without providing an opportunity to the AO.

The Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has co-terminus powers with AO and Ld.CIT(A) has verified the facts, then decided the issue. The Ld.AR also submitted that if Bench intends to set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A), then, instead of setting aside to the Ld.CIT(A), the matter may be remanded to the AO for verification.

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. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we set aside the issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 21st May, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated :21-05-2026 TNMM

ITA No. 404/PUN/2026

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →