SRI MANGOO SINGH & BALJEET SINGH MEMORIAL TRUST,TEHSIL DEOBAND, SAHARANPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3257/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 October 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)2 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

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.

What were the 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.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC was justified in rejecting the assessee's appeal without admitting additional evidence relevant to the adjudication of issues.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 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

For Respondent: Ms. Ambika Agarwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 06.10.2025Pronounced: 06.10.2025

O R D E R

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:

1.

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.

2.

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

3.

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →