SUNIL KUMAR ARORA,DELHI V. .INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIVIC CENTRE

ITA 3897/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Sh. Sunil Kumar Arora against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, which pertained to the assessment year 2014-15. The primary contention was the rejection of additional evidence submitted by the assessee during the appellate proceedings, which was crucial for contesting an addition of Rs. 1,13,06,155 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC had sought a remand report from the Assessing Officer but failed to verify the facts concerning the additional evidence and did not allow the assessee a chance to rebut the report. This led to a violation of natural justice, prompting the Tribunal to restore the matter for re-adjudication.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473544 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Other Referred Cases: Sharukh Khan vs. ACIT (2007) 104 ITD 221 (Mum)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAHIL KUMAR BANSAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJAT GARG
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3897/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sh. Sunil Kumar Arora, House/Villa No.5, Khasra No. 536 & 537, KST Villas, Village Chandan Hulla, Delhi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Civic Center, New Delhi PAN :AAWPA9907G (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065313622(1) dated Assessee by Sh. Rajat Garg, Adv. Department by Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR Date of hearing 11.12.2024 Date of pronouncement 18.12.2024 ITA No.3897/Del/2024 2 | P a g e 31.05.2024 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 3. Delay of 25 days in filing of the assessee’s instant appeal stands condoned as per his condonation petition’s averments quoting various reasons beyond his control. 4. The assessee in the instant appeal raises the following grounds of appeal: 1 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts while passing the order without providing opportunity to submit rejoinder against the remand report received from AO in relation to application for additional evidence filed by appellant and therefore, resulting in violation to principles of natural justice. 2 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and en facts while dismissing the appellant's plea that addition of Rs. 1,13,06,155/-by Ld. Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law. 3. The appellant craves for leave to alter, amend, waive, modify, vary, delete and/or add to the aforesaid grounds of appeal and prays for appropriate relief on the basis of the above said ground and/or such other relief as may be allowed to be urged by leave. 5. It next emerges that the first and foremost issue herein between the parties is that of rejection of assessee’s additional evidence in the lower appellate proceedings. ITA No.3897/Del/2024 3 | P a g e 6. A perusal of the instant case file indicates that he had preferred to file his additional evidence under section 46A of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 in the lower appellate proceedings. And that the CIT(A)/NFAC had duly sought for a remand report which came to be filed from the field authority. We are informed that at this stage neither the said remand report had verified the relevant facts in the assessee’s additional evidence, nor he was given any rebuttal opportunity by the CIT(A)/NFAC, as the case may be. 7. Faced with this situation, we of the considered view that once the learned lower appellate authority had sought for a remand report from the Assessing Officer, the only recourse available thereafter was admission of its corresponding additional evidence which could not have been refused as per Sharukh Khan vs. ACIT (2007) 104 ITD 221 (Mum). 8. We accordingly accept assessee’s instant substantive grounds for statistical purposes and restore the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for its afresh appropriate adjudication as per law subject to a rider that he shall plead and prove his case within three ITA No.3897/Del/2024 4 | P a g e effective opportunities in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly. 9. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th December, 2024 Sd/- Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 18th December, 2024. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi "