BHA vs. AGAR DEALERS PVT LTD,DELHIVS.ITO, WARD 4(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 594/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 October 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER, SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the additional evidence. The appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) to consider these evidences and decide the issues afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed its return of income, which was selected for limited scrutiny. The Assessing Officer made an addition under Section 50C based on the difference in sale value of an immovable property. The CIT(A) declined to consider additional evidences submitted by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by not considering the additional evidence submitted by the assessee. Whether the matter should be remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 50C,Section 46A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Jain, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Hearing: 25.09.2025Pronounced: 08.10.2025

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 23.12.2024 for A.Y 2017-18.

2.

The only issue arising out of the 5 grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is against the addition of Rs. 5,45,00,00/- made by the Assessing Officer.

Return of Income on 29.09.2017 declaring an income of Rs. 56,26,520/- Return was selected for limited scrutiny assessment through CASS and accordingly, statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee.

The AO passed an order u/s 144 wherein he made an addition of Rs 5,45,00,000/- u/s 50C on account of difference in sale value of the immovable property as declared by the assessee and the buyer. On appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee failed and the additional evidences submitted before the CIT(A) were declined to be considered u/r 46A.

4.

At the very outset of the opening of the arguments, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently contended that the ld. CIT(A) did not consider the additional evidences furnished by the assessee and hence the appeal may be set aside for adjudication afresh.

5.

The ld. DR on the other hand did not seriously object to the same.

6.

We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find substance in the arguments of the ld. counsel for the assessee. We are, therefore, of the considered view that Page 2 of 4 issues to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

7.

The CIT(A) is directed to consider the additional evidences and documents and decide the issues afresh after getting report from the Assessing Officer and affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to provide necessary information/documents as required by the authorities. allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 08.10.2025.

More judgments on Section 50C

All 3,223 judgments and leading authorities on Section 50C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →