PARMOD KUMAR KARNWAL ,NOIDA V. ACIT -1, MORADABAD

ITA 5991/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Pramod Kumar Karnwal, the appellant, who contested the order of the CIT(A) regarding the assessment year 2023-24. The primary contention was the incorrect addition of income and non-admission of additional evidence by the CIT(A). The appellant argued that the reimbursement of transportation expenses from IOCL should not be treated as taxable contract income and that certain contract receipts were erroneously taxed. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's request to consider additional evidence and thus remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 839232 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2023-2024
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANISH GUPTA
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Principle of natural justice; TDS; FORM 26AS
• Section: 40(a)(ia)

Judgement Text

"5991_DEL_2025_Pramod Kumar Karnwal 1 | P a g e IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & MRS. RENU JAUHRI, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5991/DEL/2025; A.Y.: 2023-24 Pramod Kumar Karnwal, 0, Village Gulistanpur, Devla Post Devla, Noida Uttar Pradesh- 201305 ACIT-1 Moradabad (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AECPK2496J Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 10.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 18.02.2026 ORDER PER RENU JAUHRI : The above captioned appeal is preferred against the order dated 14.08.2025, passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC , Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, “Act”), in Appeal No. NFAC/2022-23/10462953 for A.Y. 2023-24. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “ Ground No. 1: That, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) is unlawful and null from the outset. Ground No. 2: That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of ₹44,42,003/- made by the AO by treating the reimbursement of actual transportation expenses from M/s IOCL as taxable contract income, ignoring the contractual agreement and the true nature of the transaction. Printed from counselvise.com 5991_DEL_2025_Pramod Kumar Karnwal 2 | P a g e Ground No. 3: That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not admitting the additional evidence (contract agreement with IOCL) under Rule 46A, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and denying a fair hearing. Ground No. 4: That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of ₹40,770/- on account of an alleged contract receipt from M/s Fena Pvt. Ltd., despite conclusive evidence from the deductor that no transaction occurred and the TDS was deducted erroneously. Ground No. 5: That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in applying a mechanical approach, relying solely on Form 26AS without ascertaining the true facts, which is perverse and unsustainable in law.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return for A.Y. 2023- 24 on 29.09.2023 declaring income of ₹ 60,75,990/- from running of a petrol pump as a dealer of IOCL. The case was selected for scrutiny during the course of which Ld. AO noted that assessee had not declared contract income from IOCL correctly and also had not deducted TDS on certain payments. Accordingly, assessment was completed at an income of Rs 1,06,12,763/- vide order u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 144B dated 05.07.2024 after making addition on account of undisclosed contractual receipts and addition u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. 3.1 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Assessee's appeal was only partly allowed with regard to addition u/s 40(a)(ia) and the addition on account of contractual receipts was confirmed. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the outset, Ld. AR has submitted that the additional evidences in the form of contract agreement with IOCL were not admitted under rule 46A by the Printed from counselvise.com 5991_DEL_2025_Pramod Kumar Karnwal 3 | P a g e Ld. CIT(A). He has, therefore, requested that the additional evidences be considered in order to adjudicate the issue on merits. 5. We have heard both the parties. In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to Ld. CIT(A) with directions to admit the additional evidence and adjudicate the issue afresh on merits after affording due opportunity to the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 18.02.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR US) (RENU JAUHRI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 18.02.2026 Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "