MANU GAUR,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE, NOIDA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that if an assessee claims they were not properly served, and this is not rebutted, additional evidence should not be rejected. The First Appellate Authority has the power to inquire into the issue afresh.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal arose from an order dismissing their application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The issue involved cash deposits during demonetization, and the assessee claimed prejudice due to not being represented in assessment proceedings.
What were the issues?
Whether the dismissal of the application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A prejudiced the assessee, especially when they claimed non-representation in assessment proceedings.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, DELHI
Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 09.06.2025 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in DIN & Order No : ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 1076841756(1) arising out of the order dated 18.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the AO for AY: 2017-18.
On hearing both the sides we find that amongst other grounds of appeal, assessee has raised grounds that assessee’s application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules 1962 for admission of additional evidences was dismissed which according to the assessee has led to prejudice as assessee was not represented in the assessment proceedings as well.
3. We find that the issue involved is cash deposit during demonetization and assessee had filed relevant additional evidences under Rule 46A on 04.04.2021. However, ld.
CIT(A) found no justification for admitting additional evidences on the basis of that the assessee had not appeared during assessment proceedings in spite of notices and thus dismissed the additional evidences.
We are of the considered view that where assessee had taken a plea that assessee was not served during the assessment proceeding which was not factually rebutted. Then for the failure to appear before AO, additional evidences cannot be rejected as otherwise also as First Appellate Authority the Ld. CIT(A) can enquire into the issue afresh calling for a remand report from the AO.
Thus, ends of justice required admission of additional evidences. Accordingly, we allow the ground nos. 3 to 7 and admit the additional evidences which require verification of the additional evidences, therefore, setting aside the impugned orders, issues are Order pronounced in the open court on 25.11.2025
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 →- Noore Manpower Services vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- Maa Bhawani Minrals vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Basant Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S Swapnashiyana Homes Developers Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
