ASHWATARAMSETTY RAVINDRANATH,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE7(1)(1), BENGALURU
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC had erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the procedural ground of not filing an application under Rule 46A, especially when the assessee claimed the documents supported the existing grounds of appeal. The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a partner in M/s. Rajhans Enterprises, which received a duty drawback of Rs. 8,83,121/-. This amount was accounted for in the firm's books and offered to tax by the firm. The assessee contended that this amount should not be taxed again in his hands as a partner. The Tribunal observed that the AO had also noted the assessee's submission that the firm received the duty drawback and accounted for it. In the interest of justice, equity, and fair play, the Tribunal decided to remit the entire issues in dispute back to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The assessee was directed to produce all relevant documents and was assured a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal made it clear that further default by the assessee would not be met with leniency.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Ashwataramsetty Ravindranath, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi for Assessment Year 2018-19. The CIT(A)/NFAC had dismissed the assessee's appeal on the grounds that the assessee failed to file an application under Rule 46A for producing additional evidence, specifically an IEC certificate, affidavit, and financial documents of the partnership firm M/s. Rajhans Enterprises. The assessee contended that these documents were not additional evidence but supported the facts already stated in Form-35. The partnership firm had received duty drawback of Rs. 8,83,121/-, which was accounted for and offered to tax in the firm's books and return of income, and thus should not be taxed again in the hands of the partner. The Assessing Officer (AO) had noted that the assessee claimed not to have received the duty drawback directly, but the firm did, and it was accounted for by the firm.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in rejecting the evidences produced by the assessee on the sole ground that an application under Rule 46A was not filed, despite the assessee's contention that these were not additional evidences but supported the grounds of appeal. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the documents (IEC certificate, affidavit, financial statements of M/s. Rajhans Enterprises) were not additional evidence but were submitted to support the facts already presented in Form-35. The duty drawback of Rs. 8,83,121/- received by the partnership firm was duly accounted for and offered to tax by the firm, and therefore, it should not be taxed again in the hands of the partner. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through the Standing Counsel, had no objection if the matter was remitted to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh examination of the evidences and decision on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY
PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 09.03.2026 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1087094861(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- Ashwataramsetty Ravindranath, Bengaluru 3. Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the sole ground that in response to notice dated 23.02.2026 directing the
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Highways, Bidanasi vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
