RATTIRAM,REWARI vs. ITO WARD 2, REWARI

ITA 5130/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 September 2026AY 2020-217 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal primarily on the ground that written submissions were not filed, despite notices being issued. The assessee's counsel requested one more opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) by filing written submissions, stating the assessee had a strong case on merits. The Revenue opposed this. The Tribunal, deeming it fit to extend the assessee one more opportunity in the interest of justice and adhering to principles of natural justice, directed the assessee to strictly comply with the proceedings before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was instructed to adjudicate all grounds raised by the assessee, both legal and on merits, considering all filed evidence, including additional evidence, in accordance with law. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes as per the observations.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Rattiram, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for Assessment Year 2020-21. The CIT(A) had upheld additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) totaling Rs. 6,19,61,283/-. These additions comprised Rs. 2,30,38,383/- on account of a difference in the capital account and Rs. 3,89,22,900/- for alleged unexplained unsecured loans, both invoked under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO had determined the assessee's total income at Rs. 6,49,89,703/- against the declared income of Rs. 30,28,420/-. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal without considering additional evidence filed by the assessee, stating that the required documents were not submitted during assessment proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidence filed by the appellant under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, and whether the rejection of this evidence was factually incorrect, legally misconceived, and contradictory, especially considering the alternative invocation of Section 250(4) of the Act. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in sustaining an addition of Rs. 2,30,38,383/- under Section 68 of the Act on account of an alleged difference in the capital account, and whether the finding that the amount was not supported by documentary evidence was factually incorrect and legally misconceived. 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in sustaining an addition of Rs. 3,89,22,900/- under Section 68 of the Act representing alleged unexplained unsecured loans, and whether the finding that the amount was not substantiated by documentary evidence, received through banking channels, and that the assessee was not truthful was factually incorrect and legally misconceived. 4. Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of interest under Sections 234A and 234B of the Act. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidence and that the rejection was factually incorrect. The assessee contended that the additions under Section 68 were unsustainable as the amounts were supported by documentary evidence and received through banking channels. The assessee also argued that the assessment order was without jurisdiction due to the non-grant of personal hearing as required by Section 144B and that the CIT(A) passed the order without granting sufficient opportunity, violating principles of natural justice. The assessee relied on Section 250(4) for admitting additional evidence and argued that the interest levies were not leviable. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, through the Senior DR, vehemently opposed granting the assessee another opportunity before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-compliance before the first appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 271AAC(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “B” NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta
Hearing: 01.09.2026Pronounced: 30.09.2026

Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:

This appeal is filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act', for short), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.s’ for short) 2020-21. 2

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has grossly erred both in law and, on facts in upholding the determination of income made by the learned Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department of the appellant at Rs.6,49,89,703/- as against declared income at Rs

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →