KUNAL PATEL,UK vs. DCIT, CIRCLE INT. TAX 2(2)(2), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITITA 235/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 August 2026AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had not considered the application for additional evidence under Rule 46A in its proper perspective. The Tribunal noted that the assessee, being an NRI, faced difficulties in cooperating and representing the case before the lower authorities, particularly the AO. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) with a specific direction to admit the additional evidence. The CIT(A) was instructed to proceed strictly in accordance with the law, granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The CIT(A) was also granted liberty to call for a Remand Report from the AO if deemed necessary and was directed to dispose of the appeals within eight months. The Tribunal, however, was not convinced with the assessee's inability to represent its case before the authorities below and, in the absence of proper reasoning, imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the assessee, payable to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within seven days. The appeal concerning the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also set aside as consequential to the main assessment order.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Kunal Patel, a Non-Resident Indian (NRI), filed two appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-43, New Delhi. These orders, dated 27.03.2026, were passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and arose from assessment orders dated 23.04.2024, passed under Sections 147 and 144 of the Act for Assessment Year 2016-17. The appeals challenged the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee's counsel argued that due to the assessee's NRI status, there was a lack of cooperation, and the case could not be properly represented before the AO. The assessee had also filed an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A, which was not considered properly by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not considering the application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A in its proper perspective, thereby failing to decide the matter after considering all material facts and evidence? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and fair hearing). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the application for additional evidence under Rule 46A. Due to the assessee's NRI status, there was a lack of cooperation, and the case could not be adequately represented before the Assessing Officer. The assessee prayed for setting aside the issue to the file of the AO. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue did not oppose the prayer for setting aside the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, with fairness.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “D: NEW DELHI

Before: MS MADHUMITA ROY & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Respondent: Ms. Shalini Verma, CIT (DR) and Sh. Surender Kumar Jatav, Sr
Hearing: 10/08/2026Pronounced: 11/08/2026

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

IT(IT)A No. 235/Del/2026 (A.Y 2016-17) IT(IT)A No. 236/Del/2026 (A.Y 2016-17)

Kunal Patel Vs. DCIT 70, Briarwood Drive, United Circle International Kingdom Taxation 2(2)(2), Delhi, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN:

PAN: BLTPP6849R Assessee by : Sh. Gurjeet Singh, CA Revenue by: Ms. Shalini Verma, CIT (DR) and Sh. Surender Kumar Jatav, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing 10/08/2026 Date of pronouncement 11/08/2026 O R D E R PER BENCH: Both the Appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the

orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax

(Appeals)-43, New Delhi, under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act,

1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), both dated 27.03.2026

arising out of the assessment orders both dated 23.04.2024 passed

under Section 147 and 144 of the Act, for Assessment Year 2016-17.

IT(IT)A No. 235/Del/2026

2.

It appears that the application under Rule 46A for admission of

additional evidence has not been considered in its proper perspective

2 ITA Nos. 235 & 236/Del/2026 Kunal Patel Vs.DCIT

by the Ld. CIT(A) and finalized the matter upon confirming the

addition made by the Ld. A.O. It was contended by the Ld. AR that

the Assessee,a NRI could not cooperate with his Ld. Counsel Mr.

Gurjeet Singh, CA appearing for the Assessee and the matter could

not be represented before the Ld. A.O. Under these facts and

circumstances of the matter, the Ld. Counsel is praying for setting

aside the issue to the file of the Ld. A.O. However, such prayer has

not been opposed by the Ld. DR with all his fairness. Having regard

to the entire aspect of the matter, we dispose of this appeal by

setting aside the same to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a specific

direction upon him to admit the additional evidences and to proceed

with the matters strictly in accordance with law upon granting a

reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Liberty is

also given to the Ld. CIT(A) to call for Remand Report from the Ld.

A.O. if required. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to dispose of the appeal

within a period of 8 months from the date of passing of this order.

However, we further note that we are not convinced with the stand

taken by the Assessee as not been able to represent its case before

the authorities below particularly before the Ld. A.O. and having

regard to this aspect of the matter in the absence of proper

reasoning, we impose a cost of Rs. 10,000/- which is directed to be

deposited by the Assessee to the Prime Minister’s National Relief

3 ITA Nos. 235 & 236/Del/2026 Kunal Patel Vs.DCIT

Fund within 7 days from today and the receipt of such payment to

be furnished before the First Appellate Authority positively on the

first date of hearing of appeal. The Ld. AR has not raised any

serious objection to the proposal of imposing cost as above.

3.

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical

purposes.

IT(IT)A No. 236/Del/2026

4.

The IT(IT)A No. 236/Del/2026 is arising out the penalty order

under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and, therefore, being

consequential to the order passed by the Appellate authority, the

same is thus, also set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for

appropriate orders.

5.

In the result, Appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical

purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11/08/2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

(MANISH AGARWAL) (MADHUMITA ROY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 11/08/2026 R. Naheed, Sr PS

4 ITA Nos. 235 & 236/Del/2026 Kunal Patel Vs.DCIT

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →