INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-3(3), PMT BUILDING vs. ORING INDUSTRIAL NETWORKI NG PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

ITA 181/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 October 2026AY 2022-235 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC accepted additional evidence and deleted both additions without calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer and without providing justification for admitting the additional evidence, which is a violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The CIT(A)/NFAC is directed to call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer, provide his justification for admitting the additional evidence by passing a speaking order, and then decide the issue afresh after providing the assessee with a due opportunity of being heard. The grounds raised by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC for assessment year 2022-23, which deleted additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer had added Rs. 6,90,30,324/- under Section 69C for unexplained investment in purchases, citing a discrepancy between import bills and purchases shown in the Income Tax Return (ITR). Additionally, Rs. 14,53,939/- was added under Section 69A for unexplained money, due to a difference between bank credits and disclosed turnover. The assessee, a company, had filed its return declaring Rs. 86,40,970/-. The case was selected for scrutiny due to large turnover without an audit under Section 44AB and discrepancies in import data versus ITR purchases. The CIT(A)/NFAC deleted both additions based on additional evidence submitted by the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,90,30,324/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of unexplained investment in purchases, by accepting additional evidence without calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer and without passing a speaking order, in violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962? 2. Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 14,53,939/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of unexplained money, by accepting additional evidence without calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer and without passing a speaking order, in violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962? Assessee's contentions: None appeared for the assessee. The judgment notes that the CIT(A)/NFAC accepted additional evidence filed before him and deleted both additions. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the CIT(A)/NFAC accepted additional evidence without calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer and without giving justification for admitting such evidence, thereby violating Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962. The Assessing Officer had made the additions due to the assessee's failure to provide requisite details and supporting documents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 69A,Section 44AB,Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT-DR

PER R.K. PANDA, VP:

This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 24.11.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2022-23. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing nor any application seeking adjournment of the case has been filed. A perusal of the order sheet entries shows that in previous occasions also no one was appearing before the Tribunal when the appeal was fixed for hearing. Today also when the name of the assessee was called, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Under these circumstances, we deem it proper to decide this appeal on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the Ld. DR.

2

3.

Although a number of ground

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 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →