https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790636 The Tribunal's remand to the Assessing Officer was upheld because the additional evidence filed before the CIT(A) had not been furnished to the Assessing Officer, establishing breach of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The Delhi HC confined itself to that procedural issue and did not examine the merits of the assessment or the quantum dispute, since those matters had not been decided by the Tribunal. On the facts, the appellant failed to show compliance with the Rule 46A requirement, so the de novo remand was held legally justified and no error of law was found in the Tribunal's order. en-us Wed, 22 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Apr 2026 07:29:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790636 The Tribunal's remand to the Assessing Officer was upheld because the additional evidence filed before the CIT(A) had not been furnished to the Assessing Officer, establishing breach of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The Delhi HC confined itself to that procedural issue and did not examine the merits of the assessment or the quantum dispute, since those matters had not been decided by the Tribunal. On the facts, the appellant failed to show compliance with the Rule 46A requirement, so the de novo remand was held legally justified and no error of law was found in the Tribunal's order. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 22 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790636