INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD- 5(1), C.R. BUILDING V. BORZE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, GAZIPUR, DELHI

ITA 3845/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 5(1), against Borze India Pvt. Ltd., concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The appeal was directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which had admitted additional evidences without proper compliance with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The additional evidences included VAT returns to justify cash sales, which the assessee claimed were not accepted in physical form by the AO. The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had admitted the additional evidences without calling for comments or a remand report from the AO, which was necessary given the circumstances of non-filing of evidences before the AO.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 791030 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 23-08-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Rules
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHANTANU KANUNGOO
• Assessee Lawyers: KRISHNA KUMAR RAMAWAT
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"P a g e | 1 ITA No.3845/Del/2024 Borze India Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2017-18) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3845/Del/2024 (Assessment Year:2017-18) ITO, Ward 5(1) R. No. 379, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi – 110002 Vs. Borze India Pvt. Ltd. 105, Vardhman Master Plaza, Gazipur, Delhi – 110096 \u0001थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAECB8066E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Shantanu Kanungoo, Adv. Ms. Shyanathi Kanungoo, Adv Sh. Ashok Yadav, Adv Respondent by : Sh. Krishna Kumar Ramawat, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 02.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.12.2025 O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 25.06.2025 of the ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 2 ITA No.3845/Del/2024 Borze India Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2017-18) (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066002276(1) arising out of the order dated 29.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the ITO, Ward 5(1) Delhi for AY: 2017-18. 2. On hearing both the sides, we find that amongst other grounds on merits, department has raised ground no. 2 that the additional evidences were admitted at the stage of Ld. First Appellate Authority without complying with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. 3. Ld. Counsel for assessee has vehemently argued that as the submissions were lengthy and the paper book and documents were bulky assessee was unable to upload the same online and AO was not ready to accept the physical copies. Attention was drawn to copy of application under Rule 46A available at page 129-130 of the paper book wherein similar facts were asserted. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the additional evidences were primarily the returns filed under VAT Act to justify the cash sales. It was Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 3 ITA No.3845/Del/2024 Borze India Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2017-18) submitted that other evidences are also prima facie uncontroverted and can be very well taken into consideration at this stage. 4. However, what we find from the impugned order is that although Ld. CIT(A) mentions of the fact of filing of the application under Rule 46A but without calling for any comments or remand report from the AO or otherwise making any observation with regard to circumstances leading to non-filing evidences before the AO and justification within the ambit of Rule 46A, admitted the additional evidences and proceeded to benefit the assessee. 5. We are of the considered view that given nature of additions and the nature of evidences even if same are official records and are available in public domain, Rule 46A is mandatorily to be followed or otherwise justified that the assessee was handicapped in filing the evidence before the AO. As assessee had taken a plea that AO had refused to take additional evidence that all the more warranted an opportunity to AO to rebut such assertion. 6. We are inclined to allow this ground. The appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose and issue with regard to admissibility of additional evidence with consequences to follow the event, is restored to the Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 4 ITA No.3845/Del/2024 Borze India Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2017-18) files of ld. CIT(A) to dispose of the application afresh in light of the provision of Rule 46A of the Act. Order pronounced in the open court on 10.12.2025 Sd/- (Manish Agarwal) Sd/- (Anubhav Sharma) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 10.12.2025 Rohit, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "