MR. ABDUL NASIR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1 & TPS, TUMKUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the additional evidence should have been admitted by the CIT(A) due to insufficient time granted by the AO. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to admit the evidence and decide all issues afresh after providing an adequate opportunity to both sides.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal concerns the AY 2016-17. The primary issue is the CIT(A)'s refusal to admit additional evidence. The assessee argued that the AO did not provide sufficient time to submit evidence, as a notice was received on 13.12.2018 for a hearing on 14.12.2018.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidence when the AO provided insufficient time for the assessee to submit it. The admissibility of additional evidence before the appellate authority.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI A. K. GARODIA & SMT. BEENA PILLAI
O R D E R PER ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, A. M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee and it is directed against the order of learned CIT (A) – 7, Bengaluru, dated 22.07.2019 for A. Y. 2016 - 17.
As per ground No. 10 raised by the assessee as an additional ground, this is the grievance of the assessee that the learned CIT (A) did not admit the additional evidence filed before him by saying that none of the circumstances as mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) under Rule 46 A is present in the present case but he totally disregarded this argument of the assessee made before him that the AO has not allowed sufficient time to submit the evidences as the notice for evidences was received on 13.12.2018 for the hearing fixed on 14.12.2018. He submitted that this ground should be admitted and the matter should be restored to CIT (A) for a fresh decision after the additional evidences already filed by the assessee before him. As against this, the learned DR of the revenue although supported the order of CIT (A) but he could not point out any mistake in the argument of the assessee raised in this Ground No. 10 that the AO has not allowed sufficient time to submit the evidences as the notice for evidences was received by the assessee on 13.12.2018 for the hearing fixed on 14.12.2018
We have considered the rival submissions. First of all, we admit the additional ground raised by the assessee because we find that this is a legal issue in respect of admissibility of additional evidence by CIT (A) and these facts are available on record that the notice was issued by the AO on 11.12.2018 asking the assessee to file various evidences such as Receipts/ Bill of lorry Hiring Business, details of Hiree and lorry documents etc. as noted by the AO in Para 5 of the assessment order and it is also noted by the AO on page 1 of the assessment order that the last date of hearing was 14.12.2018 and the date of assessment order is dated 21.12.2018.
Regarding our decision in respect of this additional ground, we hold that the additional evidences filed by the assessee before CIT (A) should have been admitted by CIT (A) in the facts of the present case as per which, it is seen that the AO has not allowed sufficient time to submit the evidences as the notice dated 11.12.2018 issued u/s 142 (1) calling for various evidences a noted above was received by the assessee on 13.12.2018 for the hearing fixed on 14.12.2018. Since, learned CIT (A) has not admitted the same, we direct the CIT (A) to admit it and decide all the issues afresh after considering those evidences and after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. And he should pass a speaking and reasoned order. We set aside the order of CIT (A) and restore the entire matter to CIT (A) for a fresh decision with above direction. In view of this decision, no adjudication is called for in respect of any other ground at the present stage because all issues are restored to CIT (A) for fresh decision.
More judgments on Section 142(1)
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Subhash Chand Saini, Jaipur vs ITO Ward, Behror, BherorITA 36/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Sharma vs. Union Of INDIA Rep Thr The Intelligence Officer, Directorate General Of GST Intelligence (Dggi)Jharkhand · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Om.S.R. Construction, Through Its Proprietor Mr. Kuldeep Sharma vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Commissioner, Commerical Tax DepartmentJharkhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026