RAMESH CHANDRA AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 11(3), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the additional evidences and decide the appeal after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing, acknowledging that the assessee had failed to comply with the AO.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed the appeal without admitting additional evidence filed under Rule 46A. The assessee argued that these additional evidences were crucial for deciding the case.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in not admitting the additional evidence filed under Rule 46A and whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present the same.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘A’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
Year: 2009-10] Ramesh Chandra Agarwal, B- The ITO, Ward 11(3), Range – 42, 35, NDSE-1, New Delhi – CR Building, IP Estate, New Delhi- 110049 Vs 110002. PAN-AAEPA5411D Assessee Revenue Assessee by Shri Raj Kumar Gupta & J.P. Sharma, CA’s. Revenue by Ms. Jitender Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing 24.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 27.11.2025 ORDER
PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM,
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appellate Centre [CIT(A), in short], dated 23.06.2025 in Appeal No. CIT (A), Delhi- 4/10616/2016-17 arising out of the order passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( ‘the Act’) dt. 06.12.2016 for Assessment year 2009-10.
Before us, ld.AR of the assessee submits that appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed by ld. CIT(A) without admitting the additional evidences filed under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules) though the same were filed in terms of the letter dt. 11.10.2023 filed before the ld. CIT(A). It is submitted by ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) be directed to admit the additional evidences filed by the assessee as they are crucial to decide the issues raised in the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee.
3. In reply, ld. CIT DR supported the order of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A) however, stated that this is the second round of proceedings and despite of various opportunities provided, assessee has not filed any details before the AO. He thus requested to confirm the orders of lower authorities.
4. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on records. A perusal of the impugned order of ld. CIT(A) clearly shows that the ld. CIT(A) has not admitted the additional evidences filed by the assessee. It is further seen that though the ld. CIT(A) has reproduced the letter field by the assessee through which the additional evidences were field however, no reason was given for not admitting the same. It is true that the assessee did not make any compliance before the AO and did not file the requisite details/documents however, solely for this reason he should not be deprived from the justice.
4.1 Considering the fact that the assessee has failed to make any representation before the AO, in the larger interest of justice, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to admit the additional evidences filed by the assessee and to decide the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to appear and filed any further details/evidences in support of his case. With this direction, all the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27 .11. 2025.
More judgments on Section 46A
- Basir Khan, Birbhum vs Income Tax Officer, Suri, BirbhumITA 345/KOL/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Soumyalatha Sadanand Shetty, Mumbai, India vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1)(4), MumbaiITA 7846/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Urban Plaza LLP, Lucknow vs ITO Ward 1(4), LucknowITA 539/LKW/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Mohd Firoz, Kanpur vs ITO, KanpurITA 18/LKW/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- ACIT, Delhi vs Mani Soni Abrol, DelhiITITA 3/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
