MUKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-05, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6459/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 October 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps at various levels, which could have led to the assessee's inability to file complete evidence before the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal also recognized that the additional evidence submitted by the assessee was relevant to the core of the matter. In the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to admit the additional evidence and decide the appeal afresh after providing the assessee with three effective opportunities of hearing, at the assessee's risk and responsibility. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, for the assessment year 2020-21. The appeal challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24 (CIT(A)), New Delhi, dated 22.04.2026. The proceedings before the Assessing Officer were under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that due to communication gaps, complete evidence could not be filed before the Assessing Officer and was only submitted before the CIT(A) under Rule 46 of the Income Tax Rules. The CIT(A) had refused to admit this additional evidence.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in refusing to admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 46 of the Income Tax Rules, which was crucial to the matter, and consequently, whether the appeal should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that communication gaps at various levels prevented the filing of complete and detailed evidence before the Assessing Officer. This evidence was subsequently submitted before the CIT(A) under Rule 46 of the Income Tax Rules. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) wrongly refused to admit this evidence, which was vital to the case. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI

Before: SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21 arises against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24 (for short, “CIT(A)”), New Delhi’s

ITA 6459/DEL/2026 MUKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL

order dated 22.04.2026 passed in DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2026- 27/1088579774(1), involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Learned counsel submits that on account of communication gaps at various levels, the assessee could not file his complete detailed evidence before the Assessing Officer which could only be submitted before the CIT(A) under Rule 46 of the Income Tax Rules. And that the same has been wrongly refused to be admitted even in the lower appellate discussion.

3.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that possibility of some communication gaps at various levels in such an instance could not be altogether ruled out. And also that the assessee’s additional evidence hereinabove very much goes to the root of the matter. It is therefore deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A) for his afresh appropriate adjudication, after admission of his additional evidence, within three effective opportunities of hearing at his risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

ITA 6459/DEL/2026 MUKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 03-Sep-2026

Sd/- Sd/- MANISH AGARWAL SATBEER SINGH GODARA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER New Delhi Dated: 15.10.2026 Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS Copy to: MUKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL, A-3/33, JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI, 1 NEW DELHI-110058, DELHI

DCIT CC-05, 2 -, NEW DELHI-, DELHI

3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →