INDRANIDEVI INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O., WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY
Facts
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2018-19. They failed to furnish necessary evidence to the AO and subsequently, additional evidence was not admitted by the CIT(A) due to the lack of a petition under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, leading to the dismissal of their appeal.
Held
The Tribunal held that for the ends of justice to be served, the appeal should be restored to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a de novo decision. The AO is directed to consider all evidences the assessee may file and afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing before deciding the matter.
Key Issues
Whether the non-submission of evidence before lower authorities and non-admission of additional evidence by CIT(A) justifies remanding the case to the AO for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM
Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 24.09.2024 for the AY 2018-19.
At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee could not furnish before the ld. AO the necessary evidences as required by the ld. AO by issuing various notices. Similarly, before the ld. CIT (A) also that the assessee has filed some additional evidences, which were not admitted on the ground that no petition was filed under rule 46A of the I.T. Rules and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, the issue may be kindly be restored to the
The ld. DR on the other hand opposed the prayers of the counsel of the assessee.
After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that before the ld. AO the assessee has failed to comply to various notices issued and thus, the ld. AO could not decide the issue based upon the evidences/merit. Before the ld. CIT (A) also the ld. CIT (A) rejected the application of the assessee in respect of additional evidences and thus, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the ends of justice will be well served if the appeal is restored to the file of the ld. JAO with a direction to decide the same denovo, after taking into account all the evidences, which the assessee may file before the ld. JAO. Needless to say, that the assessee would be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before deciding the same.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26.02.2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated:26.02.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS
Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy//
Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata
