MANOJ KUMAR JAIN (HFU), DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2), BHILAI, DURG
Facts
This case was remanded by the Jurisdictional High Court, which found that the ITAT had previously erred by summarily rejecting the assessee's application for additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules without considering its necessity for a just disposal. The High Court restored the application and the appeal for fresh hearing and disposal.
Held
The ITAT granted the assessee's request for admission of additional evidence. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for de novo adjudication after obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer, as per Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, ensuring adherence to natural justice principles.
Key Issues
Whether additional evidence submitted by the assessee should be admitted under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules for a fair adjudication, and the appropriate procedure for its consideration by lower authorities upon remand.
Sections Cited
Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, Section 251(1)(a), Section 271
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY
आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM This is a remand matter from the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court vide order passed in TAXC No.61 of 2025, dated 07.04.2025 wherein, the Hon’ble High Court has held and observed as follows: “15. Coming to the facts of the present case, in light of the parameters laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court and also keeping in view the order passed by this Court in Shrivastava Associates (Supra), it is quite vivid that the ITAT was greatly influenced with the fact that application for additional evidence was not made either before the Assessing Officer or CIT (Appeals) and rejected the said application without considering the fact as to whether the documents filed by the assessee are required for just and proper disposal of the appeal in light of Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules. Hence, the ITAT has committed grave legal error in rejecting the application summarily and dismissing the appeal. 16. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the application filed under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules is set aside and subsequently, the appellate order dated 08.10.2024 is also set aside. The application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules for production/admission of additional evidence as well as the appeal is restored for hearing and disposal afresh in accordance with law, expeditiously.”
As per the aforesaid order, the Hon’ble High Court has given clear direction in the interest of substantive justice and had remanded the matter to the Tribunal for disposal afresh in accordance with law the said application filed under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963.
3 Manoj Kumar Jain Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Bhilai ITA No.240/RPR/2024
Before proceeding any further, it would be relevant to cull out Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 which reads as follows: “[Production of additional evidence before the Tribunal. 29. The parties to the appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence either oral or documentary before the Tribunal, but if the Tribunal requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined or any affidavit to be filed to enable it to pass orders or for any other substantial cause, or , if the income-tax authorities have decided the case without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to adduce evidence either on points specified by them or not specified by them, the Tribunal, for reasons to be recorded, may allow such document to be produced or witness to be examined or affidavit to be filed or may allow such evidence to be adduced.]”
In this regard, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has given petition for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, wherein a certificate has been furnished by the assessee stating that these additional evidences were furnished neither before the A.O nor before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. For the sake of completeness, the application for admission of additional evidences filed on 10.10.2025 is extracted as follows:
4 Manoj Kumar Jain Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Bhilai ITA No.240/RPR/2024
Considering the aforesaid facts and direction of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court (supra), the request for admission of additional evidences is granted.
That upon admission of these additional evidences, the matter is remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for denovo adjudication after obtaining remand report from the concerned A.O as per Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 regarding the same. Since these evidences have been placed for the first time on record, the Revenue has to conduct
5 Manoj Kumar Jain Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Bhilai ITA No.240/RPR/2024
necessary enquiry about them and provide a report to the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall proceed further in the matter. For the sake of clarity, Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 is extracted as follows:
“Production of additional evidence before the [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) [and Commissioner (Appeals)]. 46A. (1) The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the Commissioner (Appeals), any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the course of proceedings before the Assessing Officer, except in the following circumstances, namely:- (a) where the Assessing Officer has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted ; or
(b) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence which he was called upon to produce by the Assessing Officer ; or
(c) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing before the Assessing Officer any evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal ; or
(d) where the Assessing Officer has made the order appealed against without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence relevant to any ground of appeal. (2) No evidence shall be admitted under sub-rule (1) unless the [Joint Commissioner] (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals) records in writing the reasons for its admission. (3) The [Joint Commissioner] (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)] shall not take into account any evidence produced under sub-rule (1) unless the Assessing Officer has been allowed a reasonable opportunity—
6 Manoj Kumar Jain Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Bhilai ITA No.240/RPR/2024
(a) to examine the evidence or document or to cross-examine the witness produced by the appellant, or (b) to produce any evidence or document or any witness in rebuttal of the additional evidence produced by the appellant. (4) Nothing contained in this rule shall affect the power of the [Joint Commissioner] (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)] to direct the production of any document, or the examination of any witness, to enable him to dispose of the appeal, or for any other substantial cause including the enhancement of the assessment or penalty (whether on his own motion or on the request of the Assessing Officer) under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 251 or the imposition of penalty under section 271.”
Both the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC in the course of its proceedings and the A.O in the course of remand report proceedings shall comply with the principles of natural justice.
As per the above 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 open court on 14th day of October, 2025.
Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; �दनांक / Dated : 14th October, 2025. SB, Sr. PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1.
7 Manoj Kumar Jain Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Bhilai ITA No.240/RPR/2024
��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “एक-सद�य” ब�च, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5.
आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur
