MADHU JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 29(3), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
Considering the assessee's non-compliance and the submission of additional evidence, the Tribunal remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The Revenue was granted liberty to initiate penalty proceedings if there was non-compliance with notices from the authorities.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order, which had rejected additional evidence filed under Rule 46A and confirmed various additions including sale proceeds of shares (Rs. 13,07,200/-), unsecured loans (Rs. 45,00,000/-), and unexplained expenditure (Rs. 1,35,61,024/-). The tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance with both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A).
What were the issues?
1. Rejection of additional evidence by CIT(A) under Rule 46A. 2. Confirmation of additions related to share sale proceeds, unsecured loans, and unexplained expenditure without addressing merits. 3. Assessee's non-compliance with tax authorities.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI
Before: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar
ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:- The present appeal has been filed by assessee against the order of ld. NFAC/CIT(A), New Delhi dated 18.12.2023. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is bad both in eyes of law and on facts.
2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in rejecting the additional evidence filed under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.
3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not given any finding on the merits of the case.
4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by confirming the additions on account of sale proceeds of shares amounting to Rs. 13,07,200/
5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by confirming the additions on account of Unsecured Loans amounting to Rs. 45,00,000/-.
6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by confirming the additions on account of Unexplained Expenditure amounting to Rs. 1,35,61,024/-.”
Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record.
We find that, the assessee has not complied before the Assessing Officer as well as before the ld. CIT(A). Such attitude of the assessee is highly undesirable. Further, the assessee has also filed additional evidences. Hence, keeping in view facts, we remand the matter to Assessing Officer to complete the assessment proceeding afresh. Revenue would be at liberty to initiate penalty proceedings as deemed fit, in case of non compliance to the notices issued by the Authorities.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 23/01/2024.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
