##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

DELHIBENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI

Before Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad, Judicial Member

&

Smt. Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member

ITA No. 4440/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18

ACIT, Vs Dalmia Continental Pvt. Ltd.,

Circle-7(1), 10, Daryaganj, Central Delhi,

New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110002

(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

PAN No. AAACD3626J

Assessee by: Sh. R. K. Mehta, C. A.,

Sh. K. C. Jha, C. A. &

Sh. Nitin Rajput, C. A.

Revenue by: Sh. N.K. Bansal, CIT-DR

Date of Hearing:09.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 13.05.2026

ORDER

Per Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member:

The above captioned appeal is preferred by the Revenue

against the order dated 29.05.2025, passed by CIT(A)/NFAC,

Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

to as “the Act”) for A.Y. 2017-18.

2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:

“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and

in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the

assessee by deleting the addition made by the AO amounting

to Rs. 2,60,00,000/- on account of share warrants u/s 68 of

the Act.

2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in

law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the

assessee by deleting the addition made by the AO on account

of disallowance of Expenses amounting to Rs. 8,96,90,520/-.

3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in

law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the

2 ITA No. 4440/Del/2025

Dalmia Continental Pvt. Ltd.

assessee by deleting the addition made by the AO on account

of disallowance of Expenses amounting to Rs. 35,40,140/-.

4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all

of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the

hearing of the appeal.”

2.1 The department has also filed additional grounds vide

letter dated 19.12.2025 which are as under:

“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,

the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in admitting additional

documentary evidence submitted by the assessee for the first

time during the appellate proceedings without calling for a

mandatory remand report from the Assessing Officer and

without recording any satisfaction as required under Rule

46A(1) of the Income-tax Rules,1962. The failure of the Ld.

CIT(A) to comply with the procedure prescribed under Rule

46A(3) vitiates the appellate order. The omission to raise

this ground in the original Form 36 was inadvertent, and

since the issue is legal in nature.

2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend

any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course

of the hearing of the appeal.”

We first take up the additional legal ground raised by the

Revenue.

3. Brief facts are that the assessee filed its return declaring

loss of Rs.11,63,40,846/- on 31.10.2017. Return was revised

on 30.10.2018 at same loss. The case was selected for scrutiny

and assessment completed at a loss of Rs.1,85,16,186/- after

making various additions.

3.1 Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.

CIT(A). Vide order dated 29.05.2025, ld. CIT(A) allowed the

assessee’s appeal after examining the additional evidences

submitted by the assessee. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal

3 ITA No. 4440/Del/2025

Dalmia Continental Pvt. Ltd.

before the Tribunal. Besides the issues on merit, the Revenue

has raised an additional ground regarding admission of

additional evidence under Rule 46A without giving the AO an

opportunity to give his submissions on the same.

4. Before us, ld. DR has vehemently argued that the

additional evidences filed before the ld. CIT(A) were considered

without seeking any remand report from the AO and hence

provisions of Rule 46A were violated. He has placed reliance on

the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case

of CIT, Central-1 Vs. Manish Buildwell (P) Ltd. (2011) 16

taxmann.com 27 wherein it has been held that where

additional evidence was admitted and accepted as genuine at

the first appellate stage, without Assessing Officer furnishing

his c