INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. REKHA KUKREJA, RAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 647/RPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 March 2026AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC erred by admitting additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to verify or rebut it, violating Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Revenue and assessee filed an appeal and cross-objection, respectively, against the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC's order for AY 2014-15. The issue arose because additional evidence submitted by the assessee was not fully provided to the AO during the remand proceedings, thus preventing verification.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) correctly admitted additional evidence without allowing the AO sufficient opportunity for verification or rebuttal as per Rule 46A(3).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 46A(3),Section 2(14),Section 54B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CA
For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Hearing: 16.03.2026Pronounced: 17.03.2026

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA Nos.647/RPR/2025
CO No.25/RPR/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

CO No.25/RPR/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH: The present appeal preferred by the Revenue and corresponding cross objection filed by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 06.08.2025 for the assessment year 2014-15 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2. At the very outset, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that vide Page 10 of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, it is evident that the assessee had submitted additional evidences, for which, remand report had been called for. That though the remand report was called for, however, while calling for the same only submissions of the assessee were placed on record by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC but the entire attachments regarding the additional evidences was inadvertently omitted by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) /NFAC. In other words, though the remand report was called for, the A.O did not get any opportunity to verify the additional evidences since the entire annexure for such additional evidences was not provided to him by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The Ld. Sr. DR had furnished report from the A.O demonstrating these facts. The Ld. Sr. DR had also furnished a copy of the remand report, dated 24.09.2024 wherein, it clearly mentions that the reply of the assessee had been provided, however, the additional evidences

3 ITO, Ward-3(2), Raipur Vs. Rekha Kukreja CO No.25/RPR/2025 list was never attached while calling for such remand report. The afore- stated documents are extracted for the sake of completeness as follows:-

3.

Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, it is clearly evident that though remand report was called for by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) /NFAC, however, attachment containing list of the additional evidences had not been provided to the A.O which means the A.O did not get any opportunity to verify the genuineness of the additional evidences submitted by the assessee. In the interest of substantive justice, we deem

8 ITO, Ward-3(2), Raipur Vs. Rekha Kukreja CO No.25/RPR/2025 it fit and appropriate as per law to remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC with a direction to call for a remand report from the A.O along with the attachments specifying the additional evidences filed by the assessee in terms with Rule 46A(3) of Income Tax Rules, 1962 and the A.O shall furnish such ground report after verifying those additional evidences and thereafter, upon submission of such remand report the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall consider the same as per law while adjudicating the issues on merits. The assessee shall also comply with the hearing notices before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC in terms with principles of natural justice. We order accordingly.

4.

That even without going into the merits of the matter, on the issue of additional evidences itself in terms with Rule 46A(3) of Income Tax Rules, 1962, the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC as per afore-stated directions.

CO No.25/RPR/2025

6.

Since the appeal of the Revenue is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, the corresponding cross-objection filed by the assessee being supportive of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC a/w.

9 ITO, Ward-3(2), Raipur Vs. Rekha Kukreja CO No.25/RPR/2025 other legal issues, is also remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for the sake of completeness in adjudication. Accordingly, the cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the combined result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as per afore- stated terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17th March, 2026.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →