SHANTHI FOOD PRODUCTS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2)(4), BANGALORE
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHODHRY & SHRI WASEEM AHMEDAssessment Year: 2017-18
PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC,
Delhi vide order dated
19/12/2024
in DIN
No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071371840(1) for the assessment year
2017-18. 2. At the outset, it is noted that the assessment was framed by the AO ex-parte as no nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite the fact that notices intimating the date of hearing were issued multiple
Page 2 of 3
.
times during the assessment proceedings. The learned CIT(A) also upheld the order of the AO in the absence of documentary evidence from the assessee.
Before us, the assessee for the first time filed an application for admission of additional documents under Rule 10 and Rule 29 of the Income Tax Rules.
The learned AR submitted that these additional documents are crucial and could not be submitted before the authorities below due to unavoidable reasons. It was prayed that these evidences be admitted.
On the other hand, the learned DR strongly opposed the admission of these documents. According to the DR, the assessee has not shown sufficient cause for not producing such documents earlier. It was contended that the evidences are an afterthought and therefore should be rejected.
We have heard both sides and perused the material available on record. From the facts, it is clear that the assessee was negligent in pursuing the proceedings before the lower authorities. The assessee did not file the required supporting documents despite being given sufficient opportunities. These documents are filed before us for the first time.
1 However, in the interest of justice and fair play, we admit the additional evidences filed by the assessee. At the same time, considering the negligent approach of the assessee, we direct the assessee to pay a Page 3 of 3
.
cost of ₹5,500 to the Income Tax Department under the appropriate head i.e. “other head”.
2 In view of the above, we set aside the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per law, after considering the additional evidences. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in court on 9th day of October, 2025 (NARENDER KUMAR CHODHRY)
Accountant Member
Bangalore
Dated, 9th October, 2025
/ vms /
Copy to:
The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file
By order
Asst.