PRAVEEN KUMAR BANSAL,BHIWANI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWANI

ITA 3181/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Praveen Kumar Bansal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/National Faceless Appeal Centre) which dismissed his appeal and application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The original assessment order, passed under sections 147 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, included certain additions to the appellant's income. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument that the additional evidence could significantly impact the assessment, thus restoring the matter to the A.O. for a fresh evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712605 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR DHANESTA
• Assessee Lawyers: MAHESH KASERA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

"1 ITA No. 3181/Del/2024 Praveen Kumar Bansal Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI [ DELHI BENCH : “B” NEW DELHI] BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3181/DEL/2024 (A.Y 2015-16) Praveen Kumar Bansal Haryana School Street, Bichla Bazar, Bhiwani, Haryana, 127021 PAN: ABQPB7886C Vs Income Tax Officer Income Tax Department Bhiwani, Haryana Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Mahesh Kasera, Adv Revenue by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 29/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 29/07/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 13/05/2024 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed on 11/05/2023 u/s 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making certain additions. The Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), wherein the Assessee also filed an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The said application for admission of additional evidence came to be dismissed and ultimately Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 3181/Del/2024 Praveen Kumar Bansal Vs. ITO the Appeal of the Assessee came to be dismissed on 13/12/2024. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 13/05/2024, the Assessee preferred the present Appeal. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that during the assessmentproceedings the Assessee could not produce those documents, therefore, the Assessee filed an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) committed error in rejecting the application filed by the Assessee, which will go into the root into the matter and further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has also committed error in dismissing the Appeal, thus sought for allowing the appeal. 4. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the Assessee who failed to produce any document before the A.O., has filed an application for admission of additional evidence and the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly rejected the application as the case of the Assessee was not falls in any of the criteria enumerated in Rule 46A of the Rules, therefore, the application filed by the Assessee for admission of additional evidence has been rightly rejected. Thus, submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) committed no error in dismissing the Appeal of the Assessee, therefore, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the Appeal of the Assessee deserves to be dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 3181/Del/2024 Praveen Kumar Bansal Vs. ITO 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessee has not produced the requisite documents, which resulted in making the addition at the hands of the Assessee. Assessee has filed certain documents as the additional evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) in the first appeal. However, the said application has been dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A). Considering the above facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that, if the additional documents/evidence produced by the Assessee are admitted and decided the issue based on the submission and the documents produced by the Assessee, substantial justice would be render. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the A.O. for de-novo assessment with a liberty to the Assessee to produce all/any documents in support of the claim of the Assessee. Needless to say, the A.O. shall provide opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before passing the assessment orderin accordance with law. The Assessee is also directed to participate in assessment proceedings without fail. 6. In the result, the Appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th July, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 3181/Del/2024 Praveen Kumar Bansal Vs. ITO Date:- 29 .07.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "