Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed an order from the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for Assessment Year 2011-12. During the appeal, the assessee filed an application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, seeking admission of additional evidence that could not be presented to the revenue authorities earlier. The evidence pertained to the non-availability of M/s. Delta Vintrade Pvt. Ltd.'s office and disqualification of directors.
Held
The Tribunal allowed the application for admission of additional evidence, with no objection from the Sr. DR. Consequently, the case was remanded to the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, directing the first appellate authority to consider the admitted evidence after obtaining a remand report from the AO and pass a speaking order as per law.
Key Issues
Admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules and subsequent remand to the first appellate authority for reconsideration.
Sections Cited
Rule 29 of ITAT Rules, 1963, Rule 46A(3) of IT Rules, 1962, Section 250(4) of the Act, Section 250(6) of the Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA
आदेश / ORDER
PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM:
The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 23.06.2025 for the assessment year 2011-12 as per the grounds of appeal on record.
2. At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that he has filed an application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 for admission of additional evidences which the assessee could not furnished before the Revenue authorities. The aforesaid application is extracted as follows:
The aforesaid application is supported by the paper book, in which, the said additional evidences have been annexed.
The Ld. Sr. DR did not raise any objection for admission of these additional evidences. She has very fairly conceded that in the interest of substantive justice, these evidences have to be considered before arriving at a conclusion by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC.
Having heard the contention of the parties on the aspect of additional evidences, we are of the view that since an application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 has been filed by the assessee and considering the principles of natural justice, such evidences are admitted on record. That even without going into the merits of the matter, we hold that these additional evidences are required to be considered by the first appellate authority in terms with Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, 1962 wherein a remand report and ground verification from the A.O should also be called for and thereafter, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall pass a speaking order in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act as per law. The principles of natural justice always has to be complied with.
As per the aforesaid terms, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27th November, 2025.