SHUB CONDUCTORS LLP,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIR-7 DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers

ITA 4553/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 December 2025AY 2022-23Bench: SHRIMAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRISANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT observed that the case was fact-based and the insufficient fact-finding at the lower levels prevented proper adjudication. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was allowed to submit any evidence, including under Rule 46A, and the Ld. CIT(A) was instructed to examine it and seek a remand report from the AO if necessary.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to present adequate facts and evidence to the Assessing Officer (AO), leading to additions. Despite being given two opportunities, the assessee also failed to make submissions before the Ld. CIT(A), who subsequently dismissed the appeal. The assessee then approached the ITAT, protesting the denial of opportunity and the additions made on merit.

What were the issues?

Whether additions made without adequate opportunity to present facts and evidence, and with insufficient fact-finding at lower levels, should be sustained, warranting a remand for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”NEW DELHI

Before: SHRIMAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE & SHRISANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Gupta, CA

For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT DR

Hearing: 18.12.2025

सुनवाईक�तारीख/ Date of hearing: 18.12.2025 18.12.2025 उ�ोषणाक�तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), dated 06.01.2025, passed by Ld. CIT(A)-24, New Delhi. In this case it is a matter of record that the assessee could not present the facts and evidences as required at the Ld. AO’s stage (para 4 at page 2 of the Ld. AO’s order), even though he did make some compliance to the terms of notices issued by the Ld. AO but that was not considered adequate and hence, he suffered the impugned additions.

1.1 The assessee carried this matter before the Ld. CIT(A), where in respect of two opportunities given by the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee did not make any submission of facts, in fact he did not respond at all (para 3 at page 2 and para 4.1.1 at page 3 of the impugned order). Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) is seen to have also dismissed the appeal.

1.2 The assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds which protest the denial of opportunity, and the additions made on merit.

Before us the Ld. AR argued that substantial additions were made on third party evidences and have been made without adequate opportunity being provided to the assessee. It was the submission that the Ld. CIT(A) gave only two opportunities, that too within the span of a fortnight and thereafter, passed an adverse order. The Ld. AR prayed for one more opportunity to present the facts before the Ld. CIT(A).

2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. We have perused the orders of authorities below and have gone through the detailed paper book filed by the assessee. We have also heard the Ld. AR/DR. It is clear that this is a facts based case and thus inadequacy of fact finding at lower levels hampers us from adjudicating in this matter.

Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee may submit any kind of evidence in his favour, even under Rule 46A, and the Ld. CIT(A) would examine the same and call for a remand report from the Ld. AO, if required.

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 2

Order pronounced in the open court on 18.12.2025

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →