BASANT KUMAR MISHRA, KORBA,KORBA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR
Facts
The assessee appealed against the orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for Assessment Year 2018-19. The Ld. CIT(A) had rejected the admission of additional evidence, specifically a claim for expenses of Rs. 21,49,846/-, under Rule 46A, on the grounds that the assessee had ample opportunity during original assessment proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC, as a quasi-judicial authority, erred by not considering the additional evidence without cogent reasons. It set aside the orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC and remanded both the quantum and penalty appeals back for fresh consideration, with directions to admit and consider the additional evidence and issue a speaking order.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC was justified in rejecting additional evidence under Rule 46A, and if a quasi-judicial authority is obligated to consider all relevant evidence for a just decision.
Sections Cited
46A, 250(4), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY
आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The captioned appeals preferred by the assessee emanates from the respective orders of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 13.11.2025 & 14.11.2025 for the assessment year 2018-19 as per the grounds of appeal on record.
At the very outset, it is noted that the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC vide Para 6.5.1 had not accepted the additional evidences observing as follows:
“6.5.1 Admissibility of Additional Evidence under Rule 46A: Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules restricts an appellant from adducing additional evidence unless certain conditions are met (e.g., prevention by sufficient cause from producing evidence before the AO). In the present case, the appellant had ample opportunity during the original assessment proceedings to present all relevant facts and evidence. The explanation that a different CA was responsible is not a "sufficient cause" to bypass the mandatory assessment process. The introduction of an entirely new set of facts and evidence at the appellate stage, which fundamentally changes the nature of the income declared, appears to be an afterthought to mitigate the tax liability discovered by the AO. Therefore, the request to admit the fresh claim of expenses of Rs.21,49,846/- as additional evidence under Rule 46A is hereby rejected.”
That at the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that it is very crucial for the quasi-judicial authority to consider all the evidences and then, decide regarding the rights and liabilities of the parties herein. Therefore, he submitted that the matter may be restored to
3 Basant Kumar Mishra Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ITA Nos.71 & 72/RPR/2026
the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for compliance as per Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, 1962. That since other appeal i.e. ITA No.72/RPR/2026 is with regard to penalty emanating from this quantum, therefore, both the matters may therefore be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC.
The Ld. Sr. DR fairly conceded to the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee.
Having heard the submissions of the parties herein and on careful consideration of the materials on record, it is discernable from Para 6.5.1 of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC that the additional evidences have been rejected and had not been considered by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC without any cogent reasons. At the same time, as a quasi-judicial authority, it is mandatory to consider all the relevant evidence and thereafter, form reasoning to decide tax liability of the assessee. In this case, since additional evidences were not accepted by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, therefore, it cannot be said that the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had arrived at a correct findings, hence, in the interest of substantive justice, I set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remand the matter back to its file with a direction to admit and consider additional evidences and then come out with a speaking order in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act while
4 Basant Kumar Mishra Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ITA Nos.71 & 72/RPR/2026
complying with the principles of natural justice. The assessee is also directed to comply with the hearing notices before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC.
As per the above terms, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.71/RPR/2026 for A.Y.2018-19 is allowed for statistical purposes.
Since the quantum appeal i.e. ITA No.71/RPR/2026 for A.Y.2018- 19 has been restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, therefore, for the sake of completeness in adjudication, the penalty appeal i.e. ITA No.72/RPR/2026 for A.Y.2018-19 is also restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC as per aforesaid terms.
The appeal of the assessee in ITA No.72/RPR/2026 for A.Y.2018-19 is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court on 19th day of March, 2026.
Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; �दनांक / Dated : 19th March, 2026. SB, Sr. PS
5 Basant Kumar Mishra Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ITA Nos.71 & 72/RPR/2026
आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “एक-सद�य” ब�च, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5.
आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur
