ANURAG JAIN,NEW DELHI V. ITO WARD 71(3), NEW DELHI

ITA 3500/DEL/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Anurag Jain, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the CIT(Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi, which sustained an addition of Rs.35,57,700 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2021-22. The appellant sought to admit additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, claiming inability to provide necessary evidence initially due to lack of legal knowledge. The additional evidence included bank statements, maturity proceeds from post office, and confirmations from friends and relatives, intended to substantiate the credits in the appellant's bank account. The Tribunal, considering the importance of the additional evidence for substantial justice, admitted the evidence and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 34211 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Chakresh Kumar Jain vs. DCIT, Electric (Jaipur) (P) Ltd. vs. Inspecting Assisting Commissioner, Rajmoti Industries vs. ITO, Mahavir Prasad Gupta vs. JCIT, CIT Vs. Mukta Metal Works, CIT Vs. Text Hundred India Pvt. Limited, CIT Vs. Pirjun Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVANI BANSAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY AGARWAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence
• Section: 68; 101

Judgement Text

"ITA No.3500/Del/2023 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3500/Del/2023 िनधा रणवष /Assessment Year:2021-22 Anurag Jain, E-546, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi. PAN No.AAHPJ5542M बनाम Vs. ITO Ward 71(3), New Delhi. अपीलाथ\u0014 Appellant \u0016\u0017यथ\u0014/Respondent Assessee by Sh. Sanjay Agarwal, CA Revenue by Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR सुनवाईक\bतारीख/ Date of hearing: 07.01.2025 उ\u000eोषणाक\bतारीख/Pronouncement on 07.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M. This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi dated 08.11.2023 for the AY 2021-22 in sustaining the addition of Rs.35,57,700/- u/s 68 of the Act. 2. The assessee filed petition requesting for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the additional evidence could not be filed by the assessee as the assessee is not ITA No.3500/Del/2023 2 well educated and did not know about the position of law and did not know as to what evidences were required to file in order to prove the credits. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel that the additional evidence filed by the assessee in the form of bank statement, maturity proceeds from post office and confirmations from friends and relatives will prove the credits in the bank account of the assessee. 3. Ld. Counsel further submits that the cash deposits were partly out of cash sales made and the loan obtained from the HDFC bank etc. Ld. Counsel submits that all these evidences are quite material and, therefore, requested that the same may be admitted and may be restored to the Assessing Officer for verification. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: - • Chakresh Kumar Jain vs. DCIT, in ITA No.37/Agra/2011, Date of order 02.03.2012 (ITAT, Agra) • Electric (Jaipur) (P) Ltd. vs. Inspecting Assisting Commissioner, 26 ITD 236, (ITAT, Delhi) • Rajmoti Industries vs. ITO 52 ITD 286 (ITAT, Ahmadabad) • Mahavir Prasad Gupta vs. JCIT 101 TTJ 1078, (ITAT, Delhi) • CIT Vs. Mukta Metal Works, 336 ITR 555 (P&H) ITA No.3500/Del/2023 3 4. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Text Hundred India Pvt. Limited (351 ITR 57) and submitted that in order to make substantial justice the additional evidence filed by the assessee may please be admitted for consideration. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Pirjun Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd. (332 ITR 396). 5. The Ld. DR has no serious objection in admitting the additional evidence and restoring the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo verification. 6. Heard rival contentions, perused the additional evidences filed by the assessee. The additional evidences filed by the assessee in the form of bank statement, confirmation letters, ledger accounts, copy of aadhar of the creditors are very much necessary and is crucial to disposal of appeal and will have a direct bearing on the quantum addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, the additional evidence filed by the assessee is admitted. Since these evidences were not examined either by the Assessing Officer or by the Ld.CIT(Appeals). The same are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer shall examine these evidences and ITA No.3500/Del/2023 4 decide the issue in appeal afresh and in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 07.01.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA) (C.N. PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 07.01.2025 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy of order sent to- Assessee/AO/Pr. CIT/ CIT (A)/ ITAT (DR)/Guard file of ITAT. By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT: Delhi Benches-Delhi "