ACIT Vs FT Textiles Private Limited (ITAT Mumbai)
The Revenue appealed against CIT(A)’s order which had condoned delay of more than 900 days and allowed expenditure claim deleted by CPC u/s 143(1) due to non-uploading of “Other Expenses” details. ITAT held that while CIT(A) can admit additional evidence, mandatory compliance with Rule 46A procedures is essential.
The assessee argued that adjustment was made due to technical glitches while filing return and details were later submitted before CIT(A). CIT(A) accepted assessee’s explanation and granted relief without seeking comments from AO. Tribunal observed that Rule 46A requires:
- Recording reasons for admission of additional evifence, and
- Granting AO opportunity to examine or rebut such evidence.
Relying on Delhi HC decision in Manish Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., ITAT held that CIT(A) failed to provide Revenue opportunity before granting relief, thereby violating Rule 46A procedure.
Result:
Order of CIT(A) set aside; issue restored to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving AO proper opportunity. Revenue appeal allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 Ahmedabad in DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/ 250/2025-26/1078596976(1) dated 17.07.2025 for the A.Y.2020-21.
2. The only issue to be adjudicated in this Revenue’s appeal is whether the first appellate authority is correct in allowing the appeal of the appellant by believing their version of delay in filing the appeal as well as on merits w.r.t. “genuineness of expenditure claimed” without affording an opportunity to the Ld.AO.
