ARUN KUMAR YADAV, BILASPUR, BILASPUR vs. AU/NFAC, NFAC

At the very outset, it is noted that there is delay of 73 days. That explaining the said delay, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed condonation petition a/w. affidavit, dated 03.02.2026. The relevant part of the said affidavit is extracted as follows:

Having heard the submissions of the parties herein and considering the contents of the affidavit, we are of the considered view that the said delay does not attribute to any malafide or deliberate conduct on the part of the assessee. In absence of any such evidence brought on record by the Department and taking guidance from the judicial pronouncements viz. (i) Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC); (ii) Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310- 26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025; (iii) Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025 and (iv) Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025, we condone the delay of 73 days involved in filing of the present appeal.

These aforesaid documents were submitted for the first time before the First Appellate Authority. That as apparent from the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, no remand report was called for from the A.O on those documents submitted by the assessee. In other words, without providing opportunity to the A.O, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had simply relied on these documents and had adjudicated the matter in violation of Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, 1962. 7. Having heard the submissions of the parties herein and on careful consideration of the facts on records, it is apparent that these additional evidences were suo-motto accepted and considered by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC without calling for any remand report from the A.O, therefore, the A.O was not provided any opportunity to examine these documents. In view thereof, even without going into the merits of the 5 Arun Kumar Yadav Vs. AU/NFAC matter on this very aspect of additional evidence, we restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and direct him to call for remand report from the A.O in terms with Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, 1962, after which, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC after considering the remand report shall adjudicate the matter as per law complying with principles of natural justice.

As per the above terms, grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th March, 2026. AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER)