NIRMALA TRIVEDI,KANPUR vs. AO CIRCLE-1(1)(1), KANPUR

Q: Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1), Section 143(1)(a)

ITA 347/LKW/2024Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 April 2025AY 2017-184 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence submitted by the assessee, which included a certificate from the State Bank of India dated 10.05.2024. This evidence was not available before the learned CIT(A) when the impugned order was passed. Considering that the learned D.R. had no objection to the admission of this evidence and that both parties agreed to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, the Tribunal set aside the impugned appellate order dated 25/03/2024. The issues in dispute were restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) with a direction to pass a de novo appellate order in accordance with law. The CIT(A) was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and to take the admitted additional evidence into consideration. The Tribunal noted that the issues were not expressly left undecided, but the entire matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Nirmala Trivedi, filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 against an order dated 25/03/2024 passed by the ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, Hyderabad. The assessee's return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee raised four grounds of appeal concerning adjustments made by the Assessing Officer (AO) beyond the scope of Section 143(1)(a), additions of Rs. 10,32,486/- as income from House Property, additions of Rs. 46,75,658/- under the head income from other sources, and incorrect TDS credit of Rs. 6,553/- instead of Rs. 54,730/-. The learned CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal. During the ITAT proceedings, the assessee filed an application for admission of additional evidence, a certificate from the State Bank of India dated 10.05.2024, which was not before the lower authorities. The assessee explained that this certificate was obtained after the CIT(A)'s order and was crucial to prove that the premises were not occupied by SBI during the relevant previous year. The Revenue did not object to the admission of this additional evidence.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned AO erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction under Section 143(1)(a) beyond the provisions of law and making adjustments and additions to the income as per the return of income? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 143(1)(a)). 2. Whether the learned AO erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 10,32,486/- as income from House Property without appreciating the facts on record? (Question of law and fact). 3. Whether the learned AO erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 46,75,658/- under the head income from other sources without appreciating the facts on record? (Question of law and fact). 4. Whether the learned AO erred in law and on facts in allowing TDS credit of Rs. 6,553/- instead of Rs. 54,730/- as per Form 26AS on record? (Question of law and fact). Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the AO assumed jurisdiction beyond the scope of Section 143(1)(a). The assessee also sought to admit additional evidence, a certificate from the State Bank of India, which was not available before the lower authorities. The reason for non-submission was that the assessment was done by CPC u/s 143(1)(a), and the certificate was obtained only after the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee also stated that she is a senior citizen widow residing in Noida and has no connection with SBI after they vacated the property. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue's representative expressed no objection to the admission of the additional evidence. Both parties agreed that the issues in dispute should be restored back to the file of the CIT(A) for a de novo order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 143(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Gupta, C.A.

For Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi,

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)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →