ACIT, GUWAHATI V. NISHANT BAJAJ, DIBRUGARH

ITA 57/GTY/2026

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) which had allowed the appeal of the Assessee, Nishant Bajaj, concerning an addition of Rs. 99,00,000 treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This addition was initially made following a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act. The Revenue contended that the Ld. CIT(A) improperly admitted additional documents from the Assessee without a Remand Report, contrary to Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Assessee argued that the CIT(A) had issued multiple notices to the Assessing Officer for the Remand Report, which was not submitted, leading to the decision based on the additional documents provided.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 896560 (ITAT-GUWAHATI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 28-09-2026
• Assessment Year: 2023-2024
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2026
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY DEORAH
• Assessee Lawyers: SANTOSH KUMAR KARNANI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Search and seizure
• Section: 143(3); 132; 2

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI ‘DB’ BENCH (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.57/GTY/2026 Assessment Year: 2023-24 ACIT, Guwahati Vs. Nishant Bajaj Flat No.1, GS Modi Road, Jyotinagar, Dibrugarh Assam-786001 [PAN: AHTPB3750C] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Vijay Deorah, CA Respondent by : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 07.10.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 09.10.2026 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present Appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the NFAC, Delhi ‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 24.11.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, pursuant to the Search and Seizure operation, u/s 132 of the Act in the case of Pratiksha Group of Hospital & Pragjyotishpur Hospital & Research Centre Private Limited on 16.11.2023, assessment proceedings has been initiated against the Assessee and an Assessment Order came to be passed on 30.03.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.57/Gty/2026 Nishant Bajaj; A.Y: 2023-24 Page | 2 u/s 143(3) of the Act by making an addition of Rs.99,00,000/- u/s 69A by treating the same as unexplained money. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 30.03.2025, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide Order dated 24.11.2025, allowed the Appeal of the Assessee. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 24.11.2025, the Department preferred the captioned Appeal. 3. The Ld. DR vehemently submitted that the Assessee produced certain additional documents before the Ld. CIT(A) under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, however, the Ld. CIT(A) without waiting for the Remand Report, admitted the additional documents produced by the Assessee and deleted the addition which is in contravention of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeal. 4. Per contra, the Ld. AR submitted that after filing the additional evidence the Ld. CIT(A) has issued five notices to the Assessing Officer calling for Remand Report. Despite sending several reminders, the Assessing Officer has not submitted the Remand Report, therefore the Ld. CIT(A) has gone through the additional evidences produced by the Assessee and after examining those documents, rightly deleted the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.57/Gty/2026 Nishant Bajaj; A.Y: 2023-24 Page | 3 addition, which requires no interference at the hands of the Tribunal. Thus, sought for dismissal of the Appeal. 5. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessee could not give any satisfactory explanation and supporting documents to prove as to why the cash amounting to Rs.99,00,000/- should not be treated as unexplained income u/s 69A of the Act. However, during the Appellate proceedings, Assessee filed an Application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 by producing certain documents in support of his contention/claim. The Ld. CIT(A) issued a letter to the Assessing Officer dated 09.09.2025, reminders dated 17.09.2025, 16.10.2025, 09.11.2025 and 10.11.2025 calling for the Remand Report, however, the Assessing Officer did not file the Remand Report. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) acted upon the additional documents produced by the Assessee for the first time before the Ld. CIT(A) and deleted the addition. In our considered opinion, as there is no time frame to the CIT(A) under the Act to pass the first Appellate Order. The Ld. CIT(A) should have waited for the Remand Report and after obtaining rejoinder if any from the Assessee, should have adjudicated the issue which would have served the substantial justice. In view of the above, we remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to procure the Remand Report from the Assessing Officer Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.57/Gty/2026 Nishant Bajaj; A.Y: 2023-24 Page | 4 and decide the Appeal in accordance with law. Needless to say, Assessee shall be provided with opportunity of being heard. 6. In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 09.10.2026. Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 09.10.2026 DP, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR) //TRUE COPY// Printed from counselvise.com "