IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI)

BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:-2984/Del/2017 (Assessment Year- 2011-12)

Income Tax Officer M/s. North West Sales and Ward-18(4), Vs. Marketing Pvt Ltd Delhi Community Centre, Plot No.40, Block-A, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110 063.

PAN No:AAACN4873F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Gaurav Jain, Advocate Department by: Ms.Monika Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 19.09.2025

ORDER

PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated

31.03.2017 passed by CIT(A), 6, Delhi, arising out of the order passed by Assessing Officer dated 22.12.2015 for A.Y.2011-12. The reference to the word “Act” in this order hereinafter shall mean the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time.

2. The first issue raised by the Revenue through its grounds of appeal 1 & 2 are regarding an addition of Rs. 32,47,77,750/- u/s 68 of the Act by the Ld.AO and its deletion by the Ld.CIT(A). The ground of appeal No.4 is regarding admission of additional evidences by the Ld.CIT(A) in violation of provisions of Rule 46A. As the three grounds of appeal are inter-connected, they are dealt together. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee explaining the brief factual matrix, submitted that the assessee had obtained fresh unsecured loans of even amount. Admittedly, the assessee could not provide the Ld.AO requisite details in respect of said unsecured loans, as a result of which the Ld.AO proceeded to make an addition of Rs. 32,47,77,750/- u/s 68 of the Act. Before the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee requested for admission of additional evidences. The Ld.CIT(A) requested the Ld.AO to submit a remand report after examining the issue of veracity of impugned unsecured loans. The Ld.Counsel informed that the Ld.AO conducted his enquiries into the said unsecured loans. The Ld.AO did not convey any infirmity in the loans per se u/s 68 but objected to admission of additional evidences on the premise that the assessee did not possess sufficient justified grounds to have filed the evidences before the Ld.AO during the assessment proceedings. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering the remand report of the Ld.AO proceeded to delete the impugned addition.

3. It is the case of the assessee that no infirmity was found by the Ld.AO in assessee’s procurement of unsecured loans and therefore the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition. It as argued that the arguments of Ld.AO for non-admission of additional evidences are unwarranted and against the spirit of law. It was stated that in all the cases where evidences were requested by the Ld.AO and the assessee failed to submit the same, Rule 46A provided an opportunity for furnishing of the same before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The Ld.Counsel also submitted Rule 46A mandates admission of any evidence during appellate proceeding which is deemed necessary for proper adjudication of the case. It was accordingly submitted that the relief accorded by the Ld.CIT(A) was based upon correct understanding and facts of the case.

4. Per contra the Ld.DR relied upon the order of lower authorities. It was argued that the Ld.CIT(A) has violated Rule 46A by admitting evidences which were not liable for admission.

5. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. We have noted that ground of appeal no.1, 2 and 4 are on the issue of admission of additional evidences as well as the justification of unsecured loans of Rs.32.47 Crores app. As regards, admission of additional evidences, we have noted the following provisions of Rule 46A:-

“… 6[7Production of additional evidence before the 8[8a[Joint Commissioner] (Appeals)] ⁹[and Commissioner (Appeals)]

46A. (1) The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the ⁸[^8a[Joint Commissioner] (Appeals)] ⁹[or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)], any evidence, whether oral o