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:

That apart from affidavit being filed, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee made statement at bar that in his office there is no staff to assist him and he is the only person to draft and prepare the document for filing appeal before the Tribunal and supporting staff are not aware about the filing of the appeal before the Tribunal and therefore, the said delay has occurred. The Revenue on the other hand has not brought on record any evidence or counter affidavit objecting to the condonation petition.

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.

That so far as merits of the case are concerned, at the very outset, it is noted as submitted by the Ld. Sr. DR referring to Para 5.2 of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, certain additional evidences were admitted by the said authority without complying Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, 1962. The relevant extract of the said para reads as follows: “5.2……………..The appellant submitted a copy of ledger account on travelling expenses, conveyance expenses, printing and stationary expenses, repairs and maintenance expenses, miscellaneous expenses etc. The assessee also provided copy of bank statement…………”

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.

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

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.