SHANTHI FOOD PRODUCTS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2)(4), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 419/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 October 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHODHRY (Judicial Member), SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member)5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted the additional documents in the interest of justice and fair play, but directed the assessee to pay a cost of ₹5,500 due to their negligent approach. The issue was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication considering the additional evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed against an order passed by the NFAC. The assessment was framed ex-parte as the assessee did not appear during the proceedings. The assessee then filed an application for admission of additional documents before the tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether additional documents filed at the appellate stage should be admitted when the assessee was negligent in proceedings before lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHODHRY & SHRI WASEEM AHMED

For Appellant: Shri R Karthik, CA
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Hearing: 13.08.2025Pronounced: 09.10.2025

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

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 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.

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

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.

6.

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.

6.1 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 . cost of ₹5,500 to the Income Tax Department under the appropriate head i.e. “other head”.

6.2 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.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in court on 9th day of October, 2025

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →