Skip to main content
← back
Informative

ITAT Delhi Allows Admission of Additional Evidence in Unexplained Investment Case; Matter Remanded to CIT(A) for Fresh Adjudication.

Update / Judgement Date

10 Nov 2025

Source

WCP News Bulletin

Author

Sakshi Bhardwaj — WCP Legal Desk

Reading Time

2 min read

Criminal LawOther Legal Matters
ITAT Delhi Allows Admission of Additional Evidence in Unexplained Investment Case; Matter Remanded to CIT(A) for Fresh Adjudication.
WCP News Bulletin
Headnote:

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi allowed the assessee’s request to admit additional evidence in an unexplained investment case under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] had erred in refusing to consider such evidence, which was crucial for determining the nature of the transaction. Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after duly considering the new evidence.


Background:
  1. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of unexplained investment.
  2. The assessee submitted that relevant documents substantiating the source of investment could not be produced earlier due to genuine reasons.
  3. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without admitting the additional evidence, observing that the assessee failed to justify why it was not submitted during the assessment stage.
  4. Aggrieved, the assessee approached the ITAT, seeking admission of additional documents to prove the genuineness of the investment.


Tribunal’s Observations:
  1. The Tribunal emphasized that justice should not be defeated by mere technicalities and that evidence crucial to determining the correct income must be considered.
  2. It noted that the additional evidence was directly relevant to the issue of unexplained investment and could materially affect the outcome.
  3. The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should have exercised discretion under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, to admit such evidence.
  4. Accordingly, the ITAT remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) with directions to re-adjudicate after admitting the evidence and providing the assessee an opportunity of hearing.


Legal Provisions Discussed:
  1. Section 69, Income Tax Act, 1961 – Unexplained investments.
  2. Rule 46A, Income Tax Rules, 1962 – Admission of additional evidence before the appellate authority.
  3. Section 250(6), Income Tax Act, 1961 – Requirement of speaking orders by the appellate authority.

Citation: ITA No. 1118/Del/2025 | AY 2016–17

Case: Ravinder Kaur Bhasin v. ACIT / NFAC, New Delhi

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “E”

Coram: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman (Accountant Member) & Shri Sudhir Kumar (Judicial Member)

Date of Decision: 11 November 2025

Date of Hearing: 01 October 2025