Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 25/03/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023- 245/1063340892(1) of ADDl/JCIT(A)-1, Hyderabad [“ADDL/JCIT(A)”] for short].
(B) In this case assessee’s return of income, filed on 22/04/2019, was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) and intimation u/s 143(1) was issued to the assessee. The assessee filed appeal in the office of the learned CIT(A) raising the following grounds of appeal:
“1. The learned AO has erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction u/s 143(1)(a) beyond the provisions of law and making adjustments and additions to the income as per return of income.
The learned AO has erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs.10,32,486/- as income from House Property without appreciating the facts on record.
The learned AO has erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs.46,75,658/- under the head income from other sources without appreciating the facts on record.
The learned AO has erred in law and on facts to allow TDS credit of Rs.6,553/- instead of Rs.54,730/- as per form 26AS on record.”
(B.1) The learned CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee’s appeal vide impugned appellate order dated 25/03/2024. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A). In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, a paper book containing the following particulars was filed from the assessee’s side:
26 AS Old 2. 26 AS new corrected 3. Letter of State Bank of India for correction 4. State Bank of India new Branch address 5. Bajan Allianz – Account statement 6. State Bank of India confirmation of no rent paid Further an application was also filed separately for admission of additional evidence (certificate dated 20/05/2024 issued by State Bank of India, which was also filed with the aforesaid paper book referred to earlier). The relevant portion of application for admission of additional evidence is reproduced as under:
(C) At the time of hearing before us, the learned A.R. for the assessee requested for admission of the aforesaid additional evidence referred to earlier. The learned D.R. expressed no objection to admission of the additional evidence. Further representatives of both sides, the learned A.R. for the assessee and learned D.R. were in agreement at the time of hearing before us that issues in dispute in the present appeal be restored back to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
(C.1) Considering the contents of the application for admission of evidence, and that learned D.R. expressed no objection to admission of additional evidence, we hereby admit the aforesaid additional evidence.
(D) Further the aforesaid additional evidence was not before the learned CIT(A) at the time when the assessee’s appeal was decided by learned CIT(A). Considering this and the fact that representatives of both sides are in agreement on this, the impugned appellate order dated 25/03/2024 of the learned CIT(A) is set aside and issues in dispute in the present appeal before us are restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) with the direction to pass de novo appellate order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee and taking the aforesaid additional evidence into consideration.
(E) In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
(Order was pronounced in the open court on 28/04/2025)