Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee received a notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the evening of March 28, 2024, requiring compliance by March 30, 2024. Due to insufficient time, the assessee could not submit all documents to the Assessing Officer but later filed them with the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, who dismissed the appeal without considering them.
Held
The tribunal held that the assessee was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to furnish documents due to the short notice period. It ruled that the documents submitted to the CIT(Appeals) should not be treated as additional evidence and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication, considering all submitted evidence.
Key Issues
The key legal issue was whether the assessee was given a reasonable opportunity to comply with the notice under Section 142(1) and whether documents submitted to the CIT(Appeals) should be considered when insufficient time was provided by the AO.
Sections Cited
Section 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA
आदेश / ORDER
PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM:
The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 18.08.2025 for the assessment year 2018-19 as per the grounds of appeal on record.
At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee brought to the notice of the Bench that the notice u/s. 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), dated 28.03.2024 for A.Y.2018-19 spells out compliance regarding the said notice on or before 30.03.2024, 10.51 AM before the A.O and the said notice was actually received through email in the evening of 28.03.2024 by the assessee. It is the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that there was only 1 clear day in between to furnish accounts, documents and all the necessary evidences before the A.O and therefore, due to paucity of time, they were unable to submit all those documents in spite of the fact that the relevant details were available with them. In this regard, it was further submitted by the Ld. Counsel that since due to paucity of time, they were unable to furnish those documents before the A.O, they had diligently filed the same before the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. However, without considering those documents, the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Per contra, the Ld. Sr. DR supported the findings of the sub-ordinate authorities and submitted that in this digital era, when documents/evidence are to be uploaded only, it does not matter therefore whether there was only 1 day time or not since it is a matter of few minutes only.
We have heard the rival submissions and analyzed the facts and circumstances in this case. That as demonstrated by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, it is an admitted fact that the notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued dated 28.03.2024 whereas compliance was sought for from the assessee on 30.03.2024. It was further brought to the notice of the Bench that the said notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was actually received through email by the assessee in the evening of 28.03.2024 and therefore, there was only 1 clear day in between for compliance by the assessee. In other words, in that 1 day, the assessee needs to compile all the documents, submission and upload all those evidences/submissions regarding the entire transaction pertaining to the year and everything has to be completed in that 1 day. Even in the context of human probabilities and even as submitted by the Ld. Sr. DR that in this digital era, such exercise could be done but in reality for tax payer assessee collecting all documents and also to upload the same in 1 day is beyond human probabilities even in this digital era. In this context of reasonable period /opportunity, the 4 Jainam Builders Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G.)
Hon’ble High Court of Patna in the case of St. Paul’s Anglo Indian Education Society (2023) 262 ITR 377 (Pat.) had categorically held that an adjudication is unjustified if an assessee was deprived of reasonable opportunity and reasonable time to produce all relevant documents to substantiate claims made in the return of income.
That further observing on the facts, the assessee had filed all documents before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and as they could not be submitted before the A.O due to insufficient time provided by the A.O to the assessee and nothing has been placed on record by the Department against the assessee stating that it had deliberately not filed before the A.O. That the documents could not be uploaded due to fault of the department since they have not provided reasonable time frame and in such case, documents filed before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC will not to be within the periphery of additional evidences and therefore, even without going in to the aspect of compliance regarding Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, 1962, since the assessee was prevented due to insufficient time to upload the submissions/documents before the A.O, in all fairness, this matter should be remanded to the file of the A.O for denovo adjudication and that further since documents have been filed at the level of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, it is a fact that they are already therefore on record of the department and the A.O shall pass a well-reasoned order considering those evidences and submissions filed on record by the assessee. The 5 Jainam Builders Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G.)
A.O and represent the matter on merits. Principles of natural justice shall always be complied with. We order accordingly.
As per the above terms, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 7th January, 2026.