Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal arose against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, who rejected the lower appeal without admitting additional evidence. The assessee contended that this evidence was crucial and beyond their control.
Held
The Tribunal held that it was appropriate in the interest of justice to restore the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to decide the appeal afresh after admitting the additional evidence, subject to the appellant proving the facts at their own risk within three effective opportunities.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC was justified in rejecting the assessee's appeal without admitting additional evidence relevant to the adjudication of issues.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
O R D E R
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:
This assessee’s appeal /2025 for assessment year 2017-18 arises against CIT(A)/ NFAC, Delhi’s order dated 19.03.2025 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074704390(1), in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Learned counsel submits during the course of hearing that CIT(A)/NFAC has rejected the assessee’s lower appeal without admitting the additional evidence which indeed goes to the root of the matter. He further quotes various circumstances beyond the assessee’s control to buttress the point that the foregoing additional evidence deserved to be admitted in the first appellate proceedings. The Revenue is fair enough is fair enough in not rebutting the fact that the assessee’s
It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the instant appeal back to learned CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the same afresh after admitting the assessee’s relevant additional evidence as per law subject to a rider that the appellant shall plead and prove all the relevant facts at it’s own risk and responsibility, preferably within three effective opportunities, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
Order pronounced in open court on 06.10.2025.