##PAGE1##

आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण Ûयायपीठ रायपुर म(cid:581)।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR

BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

AND

SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.623/RPR/2025

(cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रण वष (cid:91) / Assessment Year : 2017-18

Uttamchand Jain

Prop. Santosh Auto Diesel,

Subhash Chowk, Main Road,

Dalli Rajhara, Balod (C.G.)-491 228

PAN: AHKPJ1062G

........अपीलाथ(cid:568) / Appellant

बनाम / V/s.

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1),

Raipur (C.G.)

……(cid:292)×यथ(cid:568) / Respondent

Assessee by : Shri R.B Doshi, CA

Revenue by : Shri CH. Rajeswara Reddy, Sr. DR

सुनवाई क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Hearing : 21.05.2026

घोषणा क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2026

##PAGE2##

2

Uttamchand Jain, Balod Vs. DCIT-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

ITA No. 623/RPR/2025

आदेश / ORDER

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM:

The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from

the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 22.08.2025 for the

assessment year 2017-18 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset even without

going in to the merits of the matter submitted that he wants to make a

prayer for admission of additional evidences which were not filed before the

Revenue Authorities and according to the Ld. Counsel, such additional

evidences are substantially relevant to decide the tax liability in the hands

of the assessee. That since due to valid reasons, these evidences were not

filed before the Revenue Authorities, the Ld. Counsel made this specific

prayer by filing an application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 for

admission of these additional evidences. The said application under Rule

29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 is extracted as follows:

##PAGE3##

3

Uttamchand Jain, Balod Vs. DCIT-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

ITA No. 623/RPR/2025

##PAGE4##

4

Uttamchand Jain, Balod Vs. DCIT-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

ITA No. 623/RPR/2025

##PAGE5##

5

Uttamchand Jain, Balod Vs. DCIT-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

ITA No. 623/RPR/2025

3. We find that similar issue has been dealt with by the ITAT, Division

Bench, Raipur in the case of Shri Shyam Oil Extractions Pvt. Ltd. Vs.

ITO/ACIT-2(1), ITA No.339/RPR/2025 & others, dated 05.02.2026

wherein the it was held and observed as follows:

“11. In this context further, a prayer has been made by the

Ld. Counsel for the assessee that these additional evidences

may be admitted by the Tribunal to protect interest of justice

and accordingly, the Ld. Counsel has filed an application

under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 which is extracted as

follows:

##PAGE6##

6

Uttamchand Jain, Balod Vs. DCIT-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

ITA No. 623/RPR/2025

##PAGE7##

7

Uttamchand Jain, Balod Vs. DCIT-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

ITA No. 623/RPR/2025

##PAGE8##

8

Uttamchand Jain, Balod Vs. DCIT-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

ITA No. 623/RPR/2025

12. Further, we find that the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh

in the case of Manoj Kumar Jain Vs. ITO, TAXC No.61 of 2025,

order dated 07.04.2025 has held that the ITAT has committed

##PAGE9##

9

Uttamchand Jain, Balod Vs. DCIT-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

ITA No. 623/RPR/2025

grave legal error in rejecting the 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. In the said referred judgment, additional evidences were

filed for admission before the Tribunal whereas, in the case of the

assesse additional evidences were filed before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)

which he had rejected.

13. We have also gone through the reasons recorded in the

petition filed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee as to why these

evidences have been filed as additional evidences for the first time

before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and we do not find any malafide conduct

on the part of the assessee. At the same time, the Ld. CIT-DR has

not brought on record any evidence/document opposing the plea of

the assessee and rather, fairly conceded that in the greater

Click Here to Read the rest of this document