ANIL MAHAJAN,DELHI V. ACIT, CIRCLE- 63(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 3816/DEL/2018

AI Insights

The case involves Anil Mahajan, who appealed against the assessment order and penalty imposed by the ACIT, Circle 63(1), New Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2013-14. Initially, Mahajan declared an income of Rs. 81,33,380, which was later assessed at Rs. 1,36,60,440 after scrutiny. The primary contention in the appeals was the rejection of additional evidence by the CIT(A), which Mahajan argued was crucial for a fair assessment but could not be submitted earlier due to his health issues. The Tribunal's decision to remand the case was based on the need to consider these additional documents and reassess the additions made to Mahajan's income.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 705912 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMAR ARORA
• Assessee Lawyers: K. SAMPATH; V
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

" 1 ITA No. 3816 & 7611/Del/2019 ANIL MAHAJAN VS. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3816/Del/2018 (A.Y. 2013-14) Anil Mahajan C/o. Kapil Goel, Adv, F- 26/124, Secdtor-7, Rohini New Delhi PAN: ABAPM0133D Vs. ACIT Circle 63(1) New Delhi Appellant Respondent ITA No. 7611/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2013-14) Anil Mahajan 10872, Jhandewalan, Nabi Karim, New Delhi PAN: ABAPM0133D Vs. ACIT Circle 63(1) New Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. K. Sampath, Adv& Sh. V. Rajakumar, Adv Revenue by Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 04/07/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The captioned appeals emerging out of Assessment order and order of penalty are filed by the Assessee against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, New Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short), dated 15/03/2018 and 31/08/2018 respectively for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2 ITA No. 3816 & 7611/Del/2019 ANIL MAHAJAN VS. ACIT 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee filed return of income declaring income at Rs. 81,33,380/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143 (2) of the Act was issued. Further, notice u/s 142(1) along with the questionnaires were also issued to the Assessee. An assessment order came to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 22/03/2016 by making certain addition/disallowance by computing the income of the Assessee at Rs. 1,36,60,440/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 22/03/2016, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During the first appellate proceedings the Assessee filed an application for production of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Act. The additional evidences produced by the Assessee have been sent to the A.O. for Remand Report. The A.O. filed Remand Report wherein refused to admit the additional evidence on the ground that the Assessee had availed sufficient opportunity during the assessment proceedings however, not produced those documents. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the A.O. vide order impugned and also enhanced the quantum of the addition. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present Appeal. 3. The Ld. Assessee's Representative without going into the merits of the case submitted that the Ld. A.O. during the Remand Proceedings as well as the Ld. CIT(A) committed error in not admitting 3 ITA No. 3816 & 7611/Del/2019 ANIL MAHAJAN VS. ACIT the additional evidence which arethe ‘complete detail’of the documents which are already produced before the A.O. further submitted that those additional evidences could not be produced during the assessment proceedings, as the Assessee was suffering from ailments, undergone various surgery including heart and both the hip replacement, thus submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have admitted the additional evidence and decided the issue on its merit. Therefore, sought for admission of the additional evidence and remanding the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for considering the matter afresh. 4. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the Assessee had sufficient opportunities during the assessment proceedings, however, complete documents were produced by the Assessee before the A.O. and the same were produced as additional evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) which were rightly rejected incompliance with the conditions mentioned in Rule 46A of the Rules and the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly enhanced the addition made by the A.O. which requires no interference at the hands of the Tribunal. The Ld. Department's Representative by relying on the order of the Ld. CIT(A), sought for dismissal of the Appeal of the Assessee. 4 ITA No. 3816 & 7611/Del/2019 ANIL MAHAJAN VS. ACIT 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Assessee moved an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules by producing certain documents, however, the same were not admitted by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has also enhanced the addition made by the A.O. while dismissing the Appeal of the Assessee. 6. It was the case of the Assessee that the Assessee was suffering from multiple ailments and had undergone various surgeries including heart and both hip replacing and was advised to take reset which resulted in not producing all the documents during the assessment proceedings. Apart from the same, itwas contended by the Assessee that the evidences have already given to the A.O. in support of his claim, however, the additional documents are the details of such documents already produced before the Assessing Officer. Considering the above facts that the Assessee was suffering from ailment and could not produce details of the documents which were already produced before the A.O., considering the above facts and circumstances, we direct the Ld. CIT(A) to admit the additional evidence and obtain the contents/Report from the A.O. and decide the issue involved in the appeal afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say, the Assessee shall be provided with opportunity of being heard. 5 ITA No. 3816 & 7611/Del/2019 ANIL MAHAJAN VS. ACIT 7. In the result, Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No. 3816/Del/2019 is partly allowed for statistical purpose. 8. Since, we have remanded the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration, the Appeal in ITA No. 7611/Del/2019 challenging the order of the penalty is also remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh in accordance with law. All the contentions of the parties are left open. 9. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No. 7611/Del/2019 is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 04th JULY , 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 04 .07.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "