VEL ARVIND,TIRUCHIRAPPALLI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER CIRCLE 1(1) TRICHY, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission for a remand. It noted that the absence of verifiable daily cash books, reliable sequential patient registers, and proper legal segregation of entity funds was evident from paragraph 7 of the impugned order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and allowed the grounds raised by the assessee for statistical purposes. The matter was remanded to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, with the undertaking that the assessee would represent its case without fail and would be at liberty to file any supporting evidence. No specific amount in dispute was recorded. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Vel Arvind, filed an appeal against the order dated 16.03.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2020-21. The assessee's representative argued that no proper opportunity was provided to furnish relevant evidence before the CIT(A) and requested a remand for fresh consideration. The Revenue's representative opposed this, pointing out that the assessee had availed multiple opportunities but failed to submit supporting evidence. The Tribunal noted the absence of verifiable daily cash books, sequential patient registers, and proper segregation of entity funds, as stated in paragraph 7 of the impugned order.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to furnish relevant evidence before the CIT(A) for assessment year 2020-21, thereby necessitating a remand for fresh consideration? (Mixed question of law and fact) Assessee's contention: The assessee contended that there was no proper opportunity to furnish relevant evidence before the CIT(A) and prayed for the matter to be remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. Revenue's contention: The Revenue vehemently opposed the assessee's submission, drawing attention to the impugned order which indicated that the assessee, despite availing multiple opportunities, did not file the relevant evidence in support of its claim.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO & BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16.03.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. At the outset the Ld. AR contended that there was no proper opportunity to the assessee to furnish the relevant evidence before the CIT(A) and prayed to remand
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 →- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
