DCIT, CIRCLE 59(1), VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI V. AJAY JAIN, NEW DELHI

ITA 2179/DEL/2023

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which had arisen from an earlier order passed by the Income Tax Officer under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention by the Revenue was that the CIT(A) had not followed the prescribed procedure under Rule 46A for admitting additional evidences. However, the assessee's counsel argued that no new or additional evidences were filed, and all relevant documents were submitted before the Assessing Officer. The tribunal agreed with the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 784561 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 28-07-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMAR ARORA
• Assessee Lawyers: RANO JAIN
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2179/Del/2023 Assessment Year : 2017-18 DCIT, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi. Vs. Ajay Jain, D-206, Block-D, Vikas Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi – 110 002. PAN: ACVPJ4070A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Smt. Rano Jain, Advocate; Ms Mansi Jain, CA; Shri Pranshu Singhal, CA; & Shri Tanishq Ahuja, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 30.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 14.11.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 01.06.2023 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in appeal No.CIT(A), Delhi-19/10866/2019-20 arising out of the appeal before it Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2179/Del/2023 2 against the order dated 24.12.2019 passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the ITO, Ward 59(2), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO). 2. On hearing both the sides we find that the only ground of challenge of impugned order by the department is assertion that the CIT(A) has not followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 46A for admitting additional evidences. Ld. Counsel for assesse has submitted that no new or additional evidences were infact filed so there was no occasion to file application under Rule 46A. The assessee had filed all the relevant documents before the Assessing Officer, therefore there was no need to file any additional evidence under Rule 46A. We are in agreement with ld. Counsel that written submissions filed before the CIT(A) is not additional evidence. Summary of VAT is also not an additional evidence as Copies of VAT returns were filed before the A.O. The sales register and cash book were filed before vide reply dated 05.12.2019. Bank statements were filed before the A.O. vide reply dated reply dated 29.11.2019. Thus the gournds have no substance the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 14.11.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (ANUBHAV SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 14th November, 2025. dk Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2179/Del/2023 3 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "