INCOME TAX OFFICER, GHAZIABAD vs. SUSHIL KUMAR, GHAZIABAD

Before us, the ld. DR at the very outset vehemently stated that the ld. CIT(A) has admitted additional evidence without referring the additional evidences to the Assessing Officer for verification and without calling for remand report from the AO.

We find from a perusal of the order of the CIT(A) that the assessee has filed additional evidence like assessee’s agreement for being distributor of service provider network company i.e. Vishesh Infosystem Pvt. Ltd. through Sharma & Co. before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has taken decision on the basis of evidence filed before him. We are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) should have referred the additional evidence to the Assessing Officer for his comment u/r 46A of the I T Rules and decide the issue after receiving report from the Assessing Officer.

Since the ld. CIT(A) has not referred the additional evidence to the Assessing Officer for confrontation, we remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issues afresh after receiving the report from the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) accordingly, is directed to decide the issues afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No. 2728/DEL/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 08.10.2025. [ANUBHAV SHARMA]