RAHUL MITTAL,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 3(2)(4), MUZAFFARNAGAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding it essential for proper adjudication. The appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment after considering the new evidence.
What were the facts?
The assessee sought to admit additional evidence in appeal, claiming bonafide reasons for non-production during assessment. These documents were considered crucial for adjudicating issues related to unexplained investment and additions.
What were the issues?
Whether additional evidence should be admitted in appeal and if the case should be remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication based on such evidence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.4425/Del/2025 [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Rahul Mittal 47-B, Vs. ITO New Mandi Ward- 3 (2)(4) Muzaffarnagar Muzaffarnagar PAN No.AIBPM1660M Appellant Respondent Appellant by Sh. Hitendra Jain, CA Respondent by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 20.05.2026 ORDER PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 22.05.2025 for the A.Y. 2015-16.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the assessee has filed application under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 for admission of additional evidences. Ld. Counsel referring to additional evidences submitted that these additional evidences which go to the root of the matter and have direct bearing on the issues involved in the present appeal particularly with
regard to the alleged unexplained investment and additions made under section 69 of the Act and section 56(2)(vii) of the Act.
Ld. Counsel submitted that this appeal is arising out of the consequential assessment order passed giving effect to the order passed by the Ld. PCIT u/s.263 of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that in course of original assessment proceedings the assessee had explained sources of cash payment which was a primarily contributed by assessee’s brother who was co-applicant in the property. Ld. Counsel submits that the assessee was under bonafide belief that documents/explanations already placed on record during the original assessment proceedings formed part of the assessment record and would automatically be available and considered during the fresh assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A).
Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the said documents / materials are necessary for proper adjudication of the issues involved in the present appeal and their consideration is essential for arriving at the correct factual understanding and for rendering substantial justice.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had no intention whatsoever to withhold such evidences and non production of the said documents during Page | 2
the fresh assessment proceedings occurred due to bonafide reasons. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that these additional evidences may be admitted and restored to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Ld. DR has no serious objection in restoring the issues to the file of the AO.
Heard rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below, the materials based before us by way of additional evidences which go to the root of the matter. In the interest of justice we admit the additional evidences by allowing the application of the Assessee. Accordingly, we restore all the issues in appeal alognwith additional evidences to the file of the AO for making assessment afresh after considering the additional evidences and providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20.05.2026.
Sd/- Sd/- [SANJAY AWASTHI] [C.N. PRASAD] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 20.05.2026 Page | 3
NEHA , Sr.P.S.* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
More judgments on Section 69
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 670/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 669/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026