AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present appeal arises from order dated 21.08.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”) by Ld. CIT(A)-30, New Delhi. In this case, the assessee is seen to be engaged in the business of software development. The Ld. AO disallowed 80% of the total salary expenses allegedly on account of a double booking of such expenses. The second addition was on account of bad debts on the ground that relevant justification for the same could not be filed before the Ld. AO.
Aggrieved with this action the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) where also he could not succeed primarily because the Ld. CIT(A) choose to rely on the findings of the Ld. AO (which have been extracted in full in the body of the impugned order). It is seen from the impugned order that the assessee filed additional evidence under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 but the same was not admitted on the basis of finding given in para 8.3 at pages 28 to 29. Briefly, the Ld. CIT(A) has held that the assessee could not make out a case for admission of new evidence.
Further aggrieved the assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds which challenge the findings in the impugned order with as many as nine grounds of appeal.
Before us, none attended on the last date of hearing, but it was decided to proceed ahead with the adjudication with the help of Ld. DR.
The Ld. DR took us through the impugned order and the findings of the Ld. AO and argued that for admitting new evidence under Rule 46A the assessee was required to make out a case as to why the same could not be submitted before the Ld. AO. It was the submission that the Ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied with the reasons for tendering fresh evidence before him and he has thus rejected the same.
We have carefully considered the submissions of Ld. DR and have gone through the orders of authorities below. It is seen that this is a facts-based case which would depend entirely on the documents available with the assessee and on a due appraisal by the authorities below. It is felt that in the interests of substantive justice, the new evidence has to be admitted and considered by the Ld. CIT(A) so that the correct income of the assessee could be determined. To this extent, we set aside the impugned order and direct the Ld. CIT(A) to admit the additional documents filed by the assessee and thereafter the Ld. CIT(A) must call for a remand report from the Ld. AO. Thereafter, the assessee would be given an opportunity of being heard and the case would be adjudicated on merit.
In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.