ARVIND SAROHA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 65(3),, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4463/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 December 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRIMAHAVIR SINGH, HONʼBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRISANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in refusing to admit the additional evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arose from an order where the CIT(A) confirmed the AO's order, refusing to admit fresh evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 46A. The assessee had been unable to present himself before the AO earlier.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to admit additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 46A. Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity for fresh assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 46A,Section 68,Section 69

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 Sameer Kapoor, CA
For Respondent: Shri Sabyasachi Roy, Sr. DR
Hearing: 17.12.2025

सुनवाईक�तारीख/ Date of hearing: 17.12.2025 17.12.2025 उ�ोषणाक�तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal arises from order dated 09.07.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. In this case, the Ld. AO passed an order dated 19.12.2018 in an ex parte manner. Thereafter, the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) with fresh evidence which was filed under Rule 46A. However, the Ld. CIT(A) declined to admit the same and thereafter, proceeded ahead to confirm the action of the Ld. AO.

1.1 Further aggrieved, the assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds which challenge the two additions made u/s 68 & 69 of the Act.

2.

Before us, the Ld. AR stated that while it is true that the assessee could not present himself before the AO, but he did make efforts to file evidences before the Ld. CIT(A), which was unfortunately rejected. It was the submission that the assessee deserves another chance to present the facts before the Ld. AO.

3.

We have heard the submissions of Ld. AR/DR and have gone through the records before us. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has indeed refuse to admit additional evidence filed by the assessee before him.

Due to this fact, we are inclined to agree with the Ld. AR that the opportunity available to the assessee for presenting facts before the Ld. CIT(A) was duly availed off by the assessee and since the fresh evidence was not admitted,hence, the assessee has no option but to plead that he may be given another chance to present the facts. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to agree with the Ld. AR. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh assessment, after entertaining all the evidences that the assessee would file before him in support of his claim. Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(A) would also call for a remand report from the AO.

4.

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17.12.2025

More judgments on Section 46A

All 520 judgments and leading authorities on Section 46A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →