“rule 46A”

AppealsRule 46ARule 46A2,967 judgments

The decision most relied on for rule 46A is CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (299 ITR 268), cited in 426 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on rule 46A

CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd.

299 ITR 268 · 2008 · High Court

426

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot add share capital or share premium amounts if the assessee provides the identity and creditworthiness of the subscriber and establishes the genuineness of the transaction. The court may admit additional evidence under Rule 46A, such as the PAN identity of the creditor.

CIT v. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P.) Ltd.

56 Taxmann.com 286 · 2015 · High Court

196

citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has an independent statutory obligation to conduct proper inquiries and verify facts, especially when the Assessing Officer has failed to do so. The CIT(A) must ensure effective inquiry is carried out before deleting additions or accepting additional evidence.

Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT

231 ITR 1 · 1998 · High Court

186

citing judgments

The first appellate authority must admit additional evidence if it is necessary for determining the true state of affairs and preventing undue hardship or a failure of justice, even without a specific request and particularly when the case falls under Rule 46A(1)(c).

CIT v. Manish Build Well (P) Ltd.

16 Taxmann.com 27 · 2011 · High Court

120

citing judgments

The CIT(A) must strictly comply with Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules for admitting additional evidence, ensuring all prescribed conditions exist, reasons are recorded, and reasonable opportunity is provided to the Assessing Officer.

CIT v. Nikunj Eximp

216 Taxmann.com 171 · 2013 · High Court

103

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer must consider additional evidence produced before the CIT(A) under Rule 46A and cannot reject it without proper appreciation of the facts, especially when the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing it earlier.

CIT v. Virgin Securities & Credits (P) Ltd.

332 ITR 396 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) must admit additional evidence if it is crucial for the proper disposal of the appeal, ensuring substantial justice to the appellant.

CIT v. Manish Buildwell (P) Ltd.

245 CTR 397 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

The production of fresh evidence at the appellate stage before the Commissioner (Appeals) is strictly governed by the conditions and procedures laid down in Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules.

CIT v. Ranjit Kumar Choudhury

288 ITR 179 · 2007 · High Court

citing judgments

The appellate authority must follow Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules when admitting additional evidence, which includes recording reasons for admission and providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to verify or refute the evidence. Failure to do so violates principles of natural justice.

Judgments citing rule 46A

DCIT 27(1), Mumbai vs. Ashok Kumar Valchand Jain, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5887/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

without giving an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine the additional evidence or to submit the rebuttal of the same in accordance with Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules 1962 ? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ... Kumar Valchand Jain opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine the additional evidence or to submit the rebuttal of the same in accordance with Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules 1962 ? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

Shri Govindbhai Bhimabhai Ram, Sutrapada, Gir Somnath vs. The ITO Ward 4 Veraval Somnath, Veraval Gir Somnath

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 677/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld Sr. DR

Section 139Section 144Section 234ASection 271ASection 69A

Report before relying upon it while deciding the appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to properly admit and consider additional evidences submitted under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by merely reproducing and relying upon

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Patna vs. Yashi Films Private Limited, Patna

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 462/PAT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 194JSection 250

income of the assessee. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has preferred to file additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules providing the details of payments made for PTS comprising of payments made to artist and other professionals and purchase of satellite rights of Rs.8

Devendrakumar Ghevarchand Jain, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1725/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia & Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 271ASection 68

Counsel for the assessee that the assessee was thus prevented by sufficient cause from producing complete evidence and that the conditions of Rule 46A were satisfied for admitting additional evidence. The counsel further submitted that in the appellate proceedings before CIT(Appeals), the assessee had uploaded replies along with documents

Harshad Himmatlal Rupani, Pune vs. ITO Ward 5(2), Pune

In the result the ground number 3 is allowed for Statistical

ITA 920/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.920/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Harshad Himmatlal Rupani, V The Income Tax Officer, 101/102, Ashoka Building, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Green Valley Housing Society, Wanwadi, Pune – 411040. Pan: Adopr6163Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Mahavir Jain Revenue By Smt Neha Thakur – (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 28/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2014-15 Dated 26.08.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 22.11.2016. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 41(1)

Assessee filed appeal before Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal).Assessee also filed certain documents before CIT(A) who called for Remand Report as per rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules from the AO. The AO submitted Remand Report. The Ld.CIT(A) finally held as under with reference to Sundry

Rajeev Kejriwal, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 33(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2981/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 68

heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 shall also be followed and an opportunity of being heard may be provided to the Ld. AO, if required

Ramesh Kumar Damani, Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 61, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2386/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 80G

support of its grounds of ITA No.: 2386/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ramesh Kumar Damani. appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962 shall also be followed and an opportunity of being heard may be provided to the Ld. AO, if required. Accordingly

Stream Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1936/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151ASection 250

heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962 shall also be followed and an opportunity of being ITA No.: 1936/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Stream Suppliers

Sanowar Ali Khan, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 25(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1503/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271ASection 282

Astoria Agro and Allied Industries Pvt Ltd, Nandurbar vs. DCIT-Central Circle 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4733/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 69A

ITAT, Hon’ble HC and even Hon’ble SC as discussed in parasupra. Moreover, the request for admission of such evidence as specified under Rule 46A(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 was not filed by the appellant. 10.1. In view of the above discussion and the case laws

Astoria Agro and Allied Industries Pvt Ltd, Nandurbar vs. DCIT-Central Circle 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4732/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 69A

Astoria Agro and Allied Industries Pvt Ltd, Nandurbar vs. DCIT-Central Circle 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4719/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 69A

DCIT Central Circle 8 2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Abhinand Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly all these appeals of revenue are to be treated, as dismissed

ITA 2172/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, & Shri NarendraFor Respondent: C. O. No. 110/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2170/Mum/2025

Section 143(3)

Further such documents are furnished before the ld. CIT(A), as additional evidence, which in order to comply with the provisions of Rule 46A were remanded back to the ld. AO and who had examined such documents and accepted that these were furnished as required, however has made a closing

DCIT Central Circle 8 2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Abhinand Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly all these appeals of revenue are to be treated, as dismissed

ITA 2171/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, & Shri NarendraFor Respondent: C. O. No. 110/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2170/Mum/2025

Section 143(3)

DCIT Central Circle 8 2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Abhinand Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly all these appeals of revenue are to be treated, as dismissed

ITA 2170/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, & Shri NarendraFor Respondent: C. O. No. 110/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2170/Mum/2025

Section 143(3)

DCIT Central Circle 8 2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Abhinand Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly all these appeals of revenue are to be treated, as dismissed

ITA 2118/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, & Shri NarendraFor Respondent: C. O. No. 110/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2170/Mum/2025

Section 143(3)

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Abhinand Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly all these appeals of revenue are to be treated, as dismissed

ITA 2117/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, & Shri NarendraFor Respondent: C. O. No. 110/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2170/Mum/2025

Section 143(3)

Income Tax Officer, Aurangabad vs. Jay Malhar Nagari Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Aurangabad

Appeal are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 719/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.719/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Jay Malhar Nagari Sahkari Aurangabad. Patsanstha Maryadit, Plot No.2, N-2, J Sector, Aurangabad – 431001. Pan: Aabtj2678L Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Cross Objection No.18/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jay Malhar Nagari Sahkari Vs. Income Tax Officer, Patsanstha Maryadit, Aurangabad. Plot No.2, N-2, J Sector, Aurangabad – 431001. Pan: Aabtj2678L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri S K Sethi (Through Virtual) Revenue By Smt Neha Thakur (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: In This Case, Revenue Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 80P(2)(a)

Book and other documents filed by Assessee before the ld.CIT(A). Ld.DR for the Revenue submitted that no remand report was called as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. ITA No.719/PUN/2025 [D] & C.O.No.18/PUN/2025 [A] 5. Ld.AR for the Assessee has filed these documents before us also ... ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. 8. In this case, admittedly, ld.CIT(A) has admitted additional evidences without following the procedure laid down in Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules. It is mandatory for ld.CIT(A) to record his satisfaction and provide opportunity to the Assessing Officer. In these facts

Income Tax Officer Ward-9(1), Pune vs. Kajal Vilas Banekar, Pimpri

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 476/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.476/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 The Income Tax Officer, Vs Kajal Vilas Banekar, Ward-9(1), Pune. Flat No.17, Vijaya Apartment, New Kate Pimple Road, Pimpri, Pune – 411017. Pan: Cdmpb0020L Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Jitendra Tiwari Revenue By Smt Neha Thakkar – Virtual (On Rotation Duty) Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2022-23 Dated 05.12.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Act, Dated 21.03.2024. Ita No.476/Pun/2025 [D]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

Ld.CIT(A). 5. It is observed from the Order u/s.250 of the Act, that no opportunity was provided to the Assessing Officer as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule. It is also noted that the ld.Commissioner of 2 ITA No.476/PUN/2025 [D] Income Tax(Appeal) has not recorded ... satisfaction before admitting Additional Evidence which is required as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. 6. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the Order of the ld.CIT(A) passed u/s.250 of the Act to ld.CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. The ld.CIT

Mahadev Tukaram Kurale, Kolhapur vs. ITO, Wrd-1(5), Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2078/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee also moved an application under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidences in support his contentions. Not being satisfied with the contentions of assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal ... additional evidences furnished by the assessee due to technical reasons i.e. the assessee could not furnish an affidavit in support of application under Rule 46A. We further find that the assessee is a business correspondent duly appointed by authorized agencies and engaged in providing services as bank mitra