ACIT, GUWAHATI vs. NISHANT BAJAJ, DIBRUGARH

ITA 57/GTY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati09 October 2026AY 2023-244 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the assessee could not provide satisfactory explanations for the cash of Rs. 99,00,000/- during assessment, they filed additional documents before the Ld. CIT(A) under Rule 46A. The Ld. CIT(A) issued multiple notices and reminders for a Remand Report, but the Assessing Officer failed to submit it. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) relied on the additional documents and deleted the addition. The Tribunal opined that the Ld. CIT(A) should have waited for the Remand Report and a rejoinder from the assessee before adjudicating the issue to serve substantial justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to procure the Remand Report from the Assessing Officer and decide the appeal afresh, providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (Ld. CIT(A)) for Assessment Year 2023-24. The assessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee, Nishant Bajaj, following a search and seizure operation on November 16, 2023. An assessment order was passed on March 30, 2025, wherein an addition of Rs. 99,00,000/- was made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, treating it as unexplained money. The assessee appealed to the Ld. CIT(A), who allowed the appeal by order dated November 24, 2025. The Revenue has now appealed this order to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting additional documents under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, without obtaining a Remand Report from the Assessing Officer, thereby contravening Rule 46A(3)? (Question of law and fact, turning on Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962). Assessee's Contention: The Ld. AR argued that the Ld. CIT(A) issued five notices and several reminders to the Assessing Officer for a Remand Report, but none was submitted. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) rightly examined the additional evidence and deleted the addition, which requires no interference. Revenue's Contention: The Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) admitted additional documents under Rule 46A without waiting for a Remand Report, which is in contravention of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, and sought to allow the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 132,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI ‘DB’ BENCH

Before: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Deorah, CA
For Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT
Hearing: 07.10.2026Pronounced: 09.10.2026

PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The present Appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the NFAC, Delhi ‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 24.11.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, pursuant to the Search and Seizure operation, u/s 132 of the Act in the case of Pratiksha Group of Hospital & Pragjyotishpur Hospital & Research Centre Private Limited on 16.11.2023, assessment proceedings has been initiated against the Assessee and an Assessment Order came to be passed on 30.03.2025 Nishant Bajaj; A.Y: 2023-24 u/s 143(3) of the Act by making an addition of Rs.99,00,000/- u

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 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →