MADAN RAUNIYAR ,GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR V. ITO, WARD- 2(1)(3), GHAZIABAD

ITA 344/DEL/2025

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 778638 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 20-01-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Rules, 1963
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR DHANESTA
• Assessee Lawyers: MUSKAN YADAV; AUDIT EXECUTIVE
• Keywords: Set aside; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member ITA No. 344/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Mr. Madan Rauniyar Proprietor M/s Gem Internationals, C-145, Paramount Golforeste, Opposite Sector-Zeta, Sector-C, Greater Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201306 Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(3), Ghaziabad (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AHOPR7967E Assessee by : Ms. Muskan Yadav, Audit Executive Revenue by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 13.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 13.10.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070637848(1) dated 26.11.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 3. Learned counsel submits that on account of communication gaps at various levels, the assessee could not appear to plead and prove all the relevant facts in the assessment proceedings; Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 344/Del/2025 Madan Rauniyar 2 and, therefore, he chose to file his relevant additional evidence under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1963 which has been wrongly rejected in the lower appellate proceedings. The Revenue could hardly dispute that the assessee’s additional evidence herein very much goes to the root of the matter. 4. Be that as it may, the fact remains that possibility of some communication gaps at various levels in such an instance of the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism could not be altogether ruled out. This is indeed coupled with the fact that there is also no effective compliance to section 250(6) of the Act in the impugned lower appellate order stipulating points of determination to be framed followed by a detailed adjudication thereupon. It is therefore deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to set aside the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for his afresh appropriate adjudication, after admission of the above additional evidence, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 344/Del/2025 Madan Rauniyar 3 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 13/10/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (Satbeer Singh Godara) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 13/10/2025 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Printed from counselvise.com "