INCOME TAX OFFICER, KANNAUJ V. M/S PUMPSET HOUSE, KANNAUJ

ITA 43/ALLD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Income Tax Officer, Kannauj against M/s Pumpset House concerning the assessment year 2018-19. The Revenue challenged the appellate order which had deleted an addition of Rs.8,57,29,290 to the assessee's income. The Tribunal found that additional evidence admitted by the CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings was not properly handled as per the procedural rules, specifically Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962, which mandates that no additional evidence should be admitted without recording reasons and providing an opportunity to the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 714170 (ITAT-ALLAHABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Smt. Mohinder Kaur vs. UOI 104 ITR 120 (All)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K. D. SHUKLA
• Assessee Lawyers: AMLENDU NATH MISHRA
• Keywords: Set aside; Additional evidence; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

"I.T.A. No.43/Alld/2025 Assessment Year:2018-19 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.43/Alld/2025 Assessment year:2018-19 Income Tax Officer Kannauj Vs. M/s Pumpset House, Tirwaganj, SO-Tirwa, Kannauj. PAN:AAAFP9157D (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.6/Allahabad/2025 (in I.T.A. No.43/Alld/2025) Assessment year:2018-19 M/s Pumpset House, Tirwaganj, SO-Tirwa, Kannauj. PAN:AAAFP9157D Vs. Income Tax Officer Kannauj (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M. (A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.43/Alld/2025 has been filed by Revenue for assessment year 2018-19 against impugned appellate order dated 21/12/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071724238(1) of Appellant by Shri K. D. Shukla, C.A. Respondent by Shri Amlendu Nath Mishra, CIT (D.R.) Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.43/Alld/2025 Assessment Year:2018-19 2 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. Grounds of appeal are as under: Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.43/Alld/2025 Assessment Year:2018-19 3 (A.1) The assessee has filed Cross Objection on the following grounds: Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.43/Alld/2025 Assessment Year:2018-19 4 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.43/Alld/2025 Assessment Year:2018-19 5 (B) In this case assessment order dated 13/03/2023 u/s 147 read with section 144 and 144B of the Act was passed whereby the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.8,57,29,290/-. The assessee’s appeal vide impugned appellate order dated 21/12/2024 was allowed and the addition of Rs.8,57,29,290/- was deleted. The relevant portion of the order of the learned CIT(A) is reproduced as under: Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.43/Alld/2025 Assessment Year:2018-19 6 B.1) The present appeal has been filed by Revenue against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 31/12/2024 of the learned CIT(A). (C) At the time of hearing, the learned CIT (D.R.) submitted that the learned CIT(A) had admitted additional evidence during appellate proceedings without providing opportunity to the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the Assessing Officer should be given an opportunity to Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.43/Alld/2025 Assessment Year:2018-19 7 consider the additional evidence furnished for the first time during appellate proceedings in the office of the learned CIT(A). The learned A.R. for the assessee submitted, opposing the appeal filed by Revenue and in support of the Cross Objection filed by the assessee, that the evidences filed by the assessee for the first time during appellate proceedings in the office of the learned CIT(A) were “clarificatory evidence” in support of evidence already filed during assessment proceedings. He further submitted that the aforesaid “clarificatory evidences” were filed during appellate proceedings in the office of the learned CIT(A) under the direction of learned CIT(A). The learned A.R. for the assessee drew our attention to provisions of Rule 46A(4) of I.T. Rules, 1962 and placed reliance on order of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Mohinder Kaur vs. UOI 104 ITR 120 (All). (D) We have heard both sides. We have perused materials on record. On perusal of the impugned order of learned CIT(A), it is found that the evidence admitted by him, which were furnished for the first time by the assessee. The assessee’s contention is that these were in the nature of “clarificatory evidence” in support of evidence already filed during assessment proceedings, filed on direction of learned CIT(A). However, there is no mention in the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) that the aforesaid evidences were in the nature of “clarificatory evidences” in support of evidences filed by the assessee during assessment proceedings. There is also nothing on record to show that these were filed under the direction of the learned CIT(A). The provisions under Rule 46A(2) of the I.T. Rules, clearly state that no evidence shall be admitted by the learned CIT(A) without recording reasons for its admission. Further, the provisions under Rule 46A(3) of the I.T. Rules enjoying upon the CIT(A) to allow reasonable opportunity to the Assessing Officer in respect of additional evidence. It is not in dispute that certain evidences were filed by the assessee for the first Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.43/Alld/2025 Assessment Year:2018-19 8 time during appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A). The assessee’s contention that these evidences furnished for the first time during appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A) were “clarificatory evidences” and that these evidences were submitted under the direction of the learned CIT(A) is not supported by materials on record. In view of the foregoing, the request made by learned CIT (D.R.) to provide opportunity to the Assessing Officer is found to be acceptable. Having due regard to principles of natural justice and in view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and the matter in dispute regarding addition of the aforesaid amount of Rs.8,57,29,290/- is restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) with the direction to pass de novo order in accordance with law after considering all materials on record and after giving due opportunity to the Assessing Officer and to the assessee. All the grounds in the appeal filed by Revenue and the grounds in the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are treated as disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions. (E) In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 07/08/2025) Sd/. Sd/. (SUBHASH MALGURIA) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated:07/08/2025 *Singh Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T., Allahabad Printed from counselvise.com "