What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not accepted additional evidence and sustained additions without proper investigation or opportunity. For complete justice, the issues were remitted back to the AO for a fresh decision.

The assessee's appeal was filed against the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee argued that additional evidence submitted to the CIT(A) was not accepted, and a proper opportunity to present her case was not granted.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by not accepting additional evidence and not providing a proper opportunity to the assessee, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

Palak Chopra vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Gupta, CA

For Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr.DR

Hearing: 12.03.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT and SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITANo.6187/DEL/2025 (Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ms. Palak Arora, vs. ITO, Ward 58 (8), B-45, Gali No.5, Delhi. Kanti Nagar Extension, Delhi – 110 051. (PAN: AXXPC5387N) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Anurag Gupta, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr.DR. Date of Hearing : 12.03.2026 Date of Order : 20.05.2026 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM : 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 30.09.2025 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the additional evidences submitted before the ld. CIT (A) were not accepted by him and proper opportunity was not granted to the assessee to substantiate her case before the lower authorities. He submitted that ld. CIT (A) observed that assessee has not controverted the findings of the AO

2 ITA No.6187/Del/2025 supported by proper evidence and further held that the assessee did not file any submissions supported by proper evidence alongwith a petition under Rule 46A for admission of evidence in the appellate proceedings. Ld. AR submitted that ld. CIT (A) had not accepted the additional evidences and ld. CIT (A) sustained the addition without proper investigation and further relying on third party information without giving proper opportunity is against the natural justice. He prayed that the issue may be remitted back to AO for fresh hearing. 3. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 4. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. In view of the factual matrix and nature of addition made by the Assessing Officer, for the sake of complete justice, we deem it fit and proper to remit back the issues in dispute to the file of the AO with the directions to decide the same afresh after allowing the assessee to file the additional evidences, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 20th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : .05.2026 TS

3 ITA No.6187/Del/2025

PALAK CHOPRA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 58(8), DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments