Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2026) 07 ITAT CK 2376

Mukesh Bansal HUF vs Dy. CIT, Circle 2(2)

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi · Decided on 22 July 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
M Balaganesh, Accountant Member · Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member
CASE NUMBER
ITA No.4597/Del/2025

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 339 words

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 27.05.2025 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in DIN & Order No : ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076488302(1) arising out of the assessment order dated 12.09.2022 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by NFAC, Delhi, for AY: 2020-21.

2.

On hearing both sides we find that amongst other grounds on merits assesse has raised a ground that assessee’s evidence filed under Rule 46A have not been admitted in accordance with law. Ld. DR has though opposed this plea we find that the issue involved is the examination of genuineness of unexplained loans and AO’s response to additional evidence by way of a remand report was called, however, AO had objected to the admission of the additional evidences on the basis of separate application under Rule 46A has not been filed. We find that ld. CIT(A) once called for remand proceedings then such a technical plea should not have been become basis to reject the additional evidences. At the same time, ld. CIT(A) observes that during remand proceedings AO has noted that submissions and evidences filed were already considered by the AO during assessment proceedings and NFAC has sustained impugned order of AO. We are of the considered view that the approach of NFAC cannot be sustained in law as assesse intends to file documentary evidences in the form of confirmation, Pan details, bank statement, ITR, financial particulars and other supporting evidences of loan creditors. AO had observed in para 4.5.1 that no ITR, bank statements of lenders were submitted and that became ground for doubting the transaction.

3.

In the light of aforesaid the additional evidences deserves to be admitted. Accordingly, admitting the additional evidence the issue on merits as well as law are restored to files of ld. CIT(A) to give fresh opportunity of hearing to the assesse and pass order afresh.