आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण Ûयायपीठ “एक-सदèय” मामला रायपरु म(cid:581)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR (cid:302)ी पाथ (cid:91) सारथी चौधर(cid:547), Ûया(cid:467)यक सदèय के सम¢

BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील स.ं /ITA No.240/RPR/2024 (cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रण वष (cid:91) /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Manoj Kumar Jain (HUF)

Aapapura, Bhoipara, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 PAN: AALHM0106J .......अपीलाथ(cid:568) / Appellant बनाम / V/s.

The Income Tax Officer-2(2), Bhilai (C.G.)

……(cid:292)×यथ(cid:568) / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Ravi Agrawal, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Hearing : 13.10.2025 घोषणा क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Pronouncement : 14.10.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM This is a remand matter from the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court vide order passed in TAXC No.61 of 2025, dated 07.04.2025 wherein, the Hon’ble High Court has held and observed as follows:

“15. Coming to the facts of the present case, in light of the parameters laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court and also keeping in view the order passed by this Court in Shrivastava Associates (Supra), it is quite vivid that the ITAT was greatly influenced with the fact that application for additional evidence was not made either before the Assessing Officer or CIT (Appeals) and rejected the said application without considering the fact as to whether the documents filed by the assessee are required for just and proper disposal of the appeal in light of Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules. Hence, the ITAT has committed grave legal error in rejecting the application summarily and dismissing the appeal.

16. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the application filed under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules is set aside and subsequently, the appellate order dated 08.10.2024 is also set aside. The application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules for production/admission of additional evidence as well as the appeal is restored for hearing and disposal afresh in accordance with law, expeditiously.”

2. As per the aforesaid order, the Hon’ble High Court has given clear direction in the interest of substantive justice and had remanded the matter to the Tribunal for disposal afresh in accordance with law the said application filed under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963.

3. Before proceeding any further, it would be relevant to cull out Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 which reads as follows:

“[Production of additional evidence before the Tribunal.

29. The parties to the appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence either oral or documentary before the Tribunal, but if the Tribunal requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined or any affidavit to be filed to enable it to pass orders or for any other substantial cause, or , if the income-tax authorities have decided the case without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to adduce evidence either on points specified by them or not specified by them, the Tribunal, for reasons to be recorded, may allow such document to be produced or witness to be examined or affidavit to be filed or may allow such evidence to be adduced.]”

4. In this regard, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has given petition for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, wherein a certificate has been furnished by the assessee stating that these additional evidences were furnished neither before the A.O nor before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. For the sake of completeness, the application for admission of additional evidences filed on 10.10.2025 is extracted as follows:

5. Considering the aforesaid facts and direction of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court (supra), the request for admission of additional evidences is granted.

6. That upon admission of these additional evidences, the matter is remanded to th