What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not consider the additional evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration of the additional evidence and to pass an order in accordance with law.

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A) order. The assessee claimed that additional evidence submitted to the CIT(A) was not considered. The assessee alleged that the AO pressured them to give a statement regarding tax payment.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not considering the additional evidence filed by the assessee. Whether the matter should be remanded to the AO for fresh consideration of the additional evidence.

Natarajan Ramakrishnan, Vadasery… vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2026

Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Hearing: 11.06.2026Pronounced: 17.06.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी इंटूरी रामाराव, लेखा सद� एवं �ी एस.एस. िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� के सम� । Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.841/Chn/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Natarajan Ramakrishnan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 44. Vadasery Milk Society, Ward-3, Nagercoil, Rajapathai Street, Vadasery Nagercoil, 629001. Kanyakumari, Nagercoil Tamil Nadu-629001. [PAN: ABSPR5157J] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. T. Vasudevan, Advocate ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Mr. Kumar Chandan, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 11.06.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 17.06.2026 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT (A), Udaipur for the assessment year 2013-14.

At the outset, ld. AR Mr. T. Vasudevan, Advocate, submits that the assessee filed additional evidence before the ld. CIT(A), which was not considered by the ld. CIT(A). Ld. AR argued that the said additional evidence is necessary for the fair adjudication of the grounds raised by the assessee. He prayed to remand the matter to the file of the AO for his

2 I.T.A. No.841/Chny/26

fresh consideration, as the AO can verify the same by examining the concerned parties.

Ld. DR Mr. Kumar Chandan, JCIT, vehemently opposed the same, as the assessee made an allegation that the AO pressurized the assessee to give a statement undertaking to pay the applicable taxes.

On perusal of the assessment order as well as the impugned order, we note that both the authorities below clearly held that the assessee failed to furnish any evidence for the cash deposits, for which the assessee filed additional evidence before the ld. CIT(A); however, the same was not admitted for consideration. Therefore, considering the same, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the AO for his fresh consideration of the additional evidence as was filed before the ld. CIT(A) and to pass an order in accordance with law. The assessee is at liberty to file evidence, if any, in support of his claim. Thus, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical 5. purposes.

Order pronounced on 17th June, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

3 I.T.A. No.841/Chny/26

Chennai, Dated, .06.2026 MM/- आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant, 2.��थ�/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड� फाईल/GF.

NATARAJAN RAMAKRISHNAN,VADASERY, NAGERCOIL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, NAGERCOIL, INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAGERCOIL

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments