Arun Tyagi vs Income Tax Officer

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2022-23, 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/250/2025-26/1085067891(1), dated 22.01.2026 involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

Learned counsel submits at the outset that the assessee had filed this additional evidence as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 in the lower appellate proceedings thereby explaining the source of the impugned cash deposits amounting to Rs. 26,00,000/- as realized thereof from S/Sh. Irshad Ali and Irfan to the tune of Rs. 14,00,000 and 12,00,000 respectively. And that the assessee was prevented by justifiable reasons beyond his control is not having adduced the said evidence during assessment. His case therefore is that his additional evidence deserves to be restored back to the learned CIT(A)/NFAC for his fresh appropriate adjudication as per law.

The Revenue could hardly dispute that the assessee’s aforesaid additional evidence indeed goes to root of the matter. And also that various communication gaps in filing of such additional evidence could not be altogether ruled out as well. It is thus deemed appropriate to direct the learned CIT(A) to admit the assessee’s aforesaid additional evidence and get the necessary remand report from the Assessing Officer in accordance with law subject to a rider it shall be the tax payer’s risk and responsibility to plead and prove all the facts in remand proceedings within three effective opportunities.

Delay of 7 days in filing of the assessee instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC).

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.