PRADEEP KUMAR AGARWAL,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD- 2(1), MEERUT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding it essential for rendering justice. The case was then remanded back to the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh after considering the new evidence and providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee sought to admit additional evidence before the ITAT, which included a personal capital account, statement of affairs for two financial years, and cash sale bills. The assessee argued that this evidence was crucial for a correct decision and had not been properly appreciated by the lower authorities.
What were the issues?
Whether additional evidence should be admitted by the ITAT and if so, whether the case should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Rule 29 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU
per law after giving full opportunity to the assessee. No other point has been argued by both the parties.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
