IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4562/Del/2024 [Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Sangeeta, Income Tax Officer, Plot No.4/5, Flat No.H-3C, Ward-2(2)(4), SEC-5, Rajender Nagar, Vs Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201005 PAN-BHQPS0912K Assessee Revenue Assessee by Shri Pranay Moha Govil, Adv.

Revenue by Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 27.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2025

ORDER

PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM, This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 20.08.2024 arising out of assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 24.12.2019 for Assessment Year 2017-18.

2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1. BECAUSE the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is bad in law for failing to have dealt with the merits of the appeal filed by the assessee. The Ld CIT (Appeals) has not considered the explanation along with documents filed by the assessee in support of the assessee's contention that the additions made by the Ld. AO were illegal and unjustified.

2. BECAUSE the Ld. CIT (Appeals) under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act has powers which are same as those of the Ld. AO and as such the Ld. CIT (Appeals) ought to have conducted further inquiry in the matter, especially considering the fact that the assessee had the requisite documents and explanation to justify the calculation as per the original returns filed by the assessee. Instead, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has only examined the reasons provided by the assessee in the application filed under Rule 46A for additional evidence to be considered.

3. BECAUSE where fresh evidence is available and the assessee is in a position to produce the same, there is no reason as to why the first appellate authority should not examine it on merits and pass an appropriate order. The above view is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of K. Mohammed v. ITO [1977]

107 ITR 808.

4. BECAUSE the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has grouped all the grounds made in the Form 35 appeal and dealt with them together in a mechanical manner, without addressing the facts of the case. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) ought to have dealt with each ground independently on the merits thereof.

5. BECAUSE the entire reasoning of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is premised on the dismissal of the assessee's application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, as a consequence of which the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has held that the contentions of the assessee remain unverified. When in fact, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) could very well conduct an inquiry under Section 250 of the Act to impart justice in the present case since the assessee was ready and willing to produce the relevant evidence in support of her claim.

6. BECAUSE the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that what is important is substantial justice and not the mere procedure in the matter. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) should have examined the additions made by the Ld. AO and independently tested the same, even in case the contentions of the assessee were not taken on record because of a procedural infirmity.

7. BECAUSE The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has dismissed the application filed by the assessee under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, without even forwarding the same to the Ld. AO concerned to invite comments thereon. Such procedure cannot be given a go bye by the Ld. CIT (Appeals), especially in a case such as the present one where the assessee has provided detailed explanation with documents, challenging the additions made by the Ld. AO

8. BECAUSE the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has incorrectly placed reliance on the decision of CIT v. Manish Build Well Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 928/2011 dated 15/11/2011). While the said decision discusses the factors when additional evidence may be taken on record, the judgment pertains to a case where the additional evidence sought to be ad