KUMARESA BAKYALAKSHMI,KARUR vs. ITO WARD I, POLLACHI

ITA 513/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 October 2026AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh consideration. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not submitted necessary documents to the AO and CIT(A), leading to additions. The assessee was granted liberty to file evidence in support of their claim before the AO. The AO was directed to consider the evidence filed by the assessee and pass an order in accordance with the law. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The principle derived is that in the interest of justice and to ensure fair adjudication, especially when additional evidence is presented and both parties consent, a remand for fresh consideration by the AO is appropriate.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Kumaresan Bakyalakshmi, filed an appeal against the order dated 27.11.2025 passed by the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A), Panaji for the assessment year 2010-11. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) requested details under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which the assessee failed to provide. Consequently, the AO made an addition of Rs. 12,04,210/- in the absence of supporting documents. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] confirmed the AO's view, citing non-submission of cash flow statement, books of account, bank statement analysis, and details regarding identity, capacity, and genuineness of sources, as well as money-lending business income. The assessee then presented a paper book with additional evidence before the Tribunal, requesting a remand.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should admit additional evidence in the form of a paper book consisting of 102 pages, which was not presented before the lower authorities, for a fair adjudication of the case? Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the documents in the paper book were necessary for a fair adjudication and were not available to the AO or CIT(A) during their proceedings. Therefore, the matter should be remanded to the AO for fresh consideration. Revenue's contention: The Revenue reported no objection to remanding the matter to the AO and admitting the documents furnished in the paper book as additional evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Hearing: 09.07.2026Pronounced: 05.10.2026

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.11.2025 passed by the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A), Panaji for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. At the outset, on perusal of the assessment order dated 28.12.2018, we note that the AO asked the assessee to furnish details in support of the transactions undertaken under Section 142(1) of the Act. However, no details were filed by the assessee, which is evide

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 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →