What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order in the interest of justice. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, with directions for the assessee to file all relevant details and be granted an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order. During the hearing, it was agreed by both parties that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A by admitting fresh evidence without a remand report.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by admitting fresh evidence without following the prescribed procedure under Rule 46A.

ITO vs Nirmala Rai, Jorethang, Sikkim | ITAT Kolkata 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate

For Respondent: Shri Aditya Bikram, Sr. DR

Hearing: 16.04.2026Pronounced: 16.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.667/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 ITO, Ward-3(1), Gangtok Nirmala Rai

Vs Near Sai Mandir Dara Gaon Naya Bazar Jorethang, South Sikkim Pin737121. (PAN: BIMPR4816G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Aditya Bikram, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 16.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 16.04.2026

ORDER Per George Mathan, JM: This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.CIT(A), Siliguri/10206/2019-20 dated 21.01.2025.

Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Aditya Bikram, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

At the time of hearing, the AR submitted there is violation of Rule 46A in so far as fresh evidences have been admitted by the ld. CIT(A). It

ITA No.667/Kol/2025

was fairly agreed by both the parties that there is violation of provisions of Rule 46A. The ld. AR prayed that the issues in this appeal may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to enable the assessee to file all the details before the Assessing Officer.

We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has admitted fresh evidences without calling for remand report from the Assessing Officer, thus in the interest of justice, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside. The issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and the assessee is directed to file all relevant details before the Assessing Officer.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 16/04/2026. Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [George Mathan] लेखा सदस्य/Accountant Member न्याययक सदस्य/Judicial Member

Dated: 16/04/2026 RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent – 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),

ITA No.667/Kol/2025

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

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(1), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. NIRMALA RAI, JORETHANG, SIKKIM

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