“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

Shri Kishan, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3030/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Kishan S/O Late Jagmal Vs Income Tax Officer Singh, H. No.112, Near Shiv Ward- 4 (2) Mandir, Village & P.O. Gurgaon Nakhrola, Tehsil, Manesar Distt. Gurgaon – 122001 Pan No. Aaacp0165G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sh. Manoj Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer S/O Late Sh. Jagdish Chander Ward-2 (4) Village P & O. Nakhrola Gurgaon Tehsil Manesar Gurgaon-122001 Pan No. Atvpm1063B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 548Section 54B

letter from CIT(A) dated 18- 11-2016, copy of the reply of the letter dated 02-12-2016, copy of application under rule 46A of the Income Tax rules along with copy of sale deed and valuation report, copy of remand report, copy of rejoinder to the remand report

Manoj Kumar, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3029/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 548Section 54B

DCIT Central, Bhopal vs. Sharad Sharma, Bhopal

ITA 309/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A No. 29/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2010-11) It(Ss)A No. 32/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2015-16) Shri Sharad Sharma, Acit, Central, बनाम/ H-3B, Nishant Colony, Gwalior Vs. 74 Bunglows, (Stationed At Bhopal) Tt Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Amzps9791D) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

before CIT(A) as additional evidence, without providing any opportunity to be assessing officer to rebut the same, when it is mandatory as per Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules at Ld. CIT(A) shall not take into account any evidence produced under Rule 46(1) of Income Tax Rules ... accepted additional evidence without providing any opportunity to the assessing officer to rebut the same, when it is mandatory as per Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules that CIT(A) shall not take into account any evidence produced under Rule 46(1) of Income Tax Rules, unless the Assessing Officer

DCIT Central, Bhopal vs. Sharad Sharma, Bhopal

ITA 304/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Mali Ram Yadav, Shahpura vs. ITO, Behror

In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed

ITA 513/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. L. Yadav, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 69A

Therefore, keeping in mind the principles of natural justice and to render substantive justice, the additional evidences produced during appellate proceedings are admitted under Rule 46A(1) of Income tax Rules, 1962. 4.7 As observed from the impugned order, the AO had the information that during the year under consideration

Mamsa Co-Op Industrial Estate Ltd, Mumbai Central vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (A), Mumbai

ITA 1351/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Marlon RegoFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 80P

failed to appreciate the facts that no fresh additional evidences have been produced at appellate stage so as to invoke provision of Rule 46A (1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 4. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Hon'ble Ld. Commissioner

A.C.I.T. Cir. 6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Doshion Watesr Solutions P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the revenue’s appeal ITA NO

ITA 1503/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 68

genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the shareholder in respect of above said share capital and premium. 19. Assessee filed additional evidence under rule 46A of the rules before learned CIT(A), who, after admitting the same, received copy of financial statements of Doshion Ltd. (the shareholder ... appellant during the previous year. The appellant furnished the financial statements of DPL for FY 2011-12 by way of additional evidence under Rule 46A. During the remand proceedings, the A.O. called for further details such as the shareholding pattern of the appellant company as on 31.03.2012, the copies

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad vs. Lakhani Arman Shoes Private Limited, Faridabad

In the result, cross objection of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2926/DEL/2023[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Whether Ld. CIT(A) has not erred in admitting evidence in violation of Rule 46A.” 2. Cross objections raised by the assessee are as under: 1. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not considering that the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer

Brijeshkumar Jayantibhai Patel, Anand vs. The Income Tax Office, Ward-1(3)(1), Petlad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 18/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench , Ahmedabad For Assessment Year 2011-12 Is Directed Against The Appellate Order Dated 7Th November, 2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income

For Appellant: Shri Vinit Mundra, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

additional evidences I.T.A No. 18/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. 12 Brijeshkumar Jayantibhai Patel v. ITO filed by the assessee , in terms of Rule 46A nor any remand report was called by ld. CIT(A) from the AO. The power of ld. CIT(A) are co-terminus with the power

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada vs. Fysolate Technologies, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 182/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.182/Viz/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Fysolate Technologies, Income Tax, Vijayawada. Vijawayada. Pan: Aacff5633L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Mithilesh Sannareddy ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 15/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri Mithilesh SannareddyFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

admitting the additional evidences filed by the assessee during appellate proceedings which were never produced before the TPO or JAO in contravention of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. 3. Whether on the given facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified ... revenue of the AE before the Ld. CIT(A) whereas the Ld. CIT(A) has not provided an opportunity to the Ld. AO under Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1963. The Ld. DR contended that these details are not provided before the Ld.AO / Ld. TPO. The Ld. DR further

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Gandhinagar vs. Shri Ramesh Gobarji Thakor, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 59/AHD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer Vs. Shri Ramesh Gobarji Thakor Ward-3 Sector 11 Gandhinagar. Gandhinagar. Pan : Aespt 3446 H (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/07/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate and Shri Parin Shah, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 250Section 68

erred in law and on facts in admitting the additional evidences without drawing satisfaction on one or more of the circumstances laid down in Rule 46A of the I. T. Rules, 1962, when the AO has given ample opportunities to the assessee to furnish the requisite details". 2 iii) "Whether ... admitting the additional evidence in respect of cash credits of Rs. 1.80 Crore in respect of Shri R. M. Thakore in violation of . Rule 46A of the Act. v) Whether, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(appeals) has erred in law and on facts in admitting the additional evidence

M/S Mahalaxmi Engineering Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1583/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mr. K Shivram

Section 143(3)Section 37

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SUNIL

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1 Nasshik, Nashik vs. Harsh Constructions Private Limited, Nashik

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

ITA 302/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 1, Harsh Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Nashik Sanskruti, Murkute Colony, Vs. New Pandit Colony, Sharanpur Road, Nashik – 422002 Pan: Aacch2277H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj S. Dandgaval Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 03-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.12.2023 Of The Cit(A) / Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue In The Grounds Of Appeal Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Restricting The Disallowance To Rs.2,24,191/- As Against Rs.1,25,51,607/- Proposed By The Assessing Officer In The Remand Report As Against Rs.4,38,96,880/- Added By Him In The Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj S. DandgavalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 133Section 133(5)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Saddam Ansari 25,54,157/- 10,000/- Total 1,25,51,607/- Further, in this case, the appellant has submitted an application under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 and the appellant has mentioned that during the assessment proceeding, the Ld. Assessing Officer has issued notice ... which was not in control of the appellant. Now, after considering facts of the case and the submission of the appellant, the application under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 is accepted as per Clause1(d) of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule

Jhunjhunbalaji Motors Pvt.Ltd., Jhunjhunu vs. ACIT Circle-Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu

ITA 344/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 151(2)

Audited Statements as additional evidence u/s 46A(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. In the background of the appellant's request, Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules is reproduced for the sake of clarity: - 46A. (1) The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the [Joint Commissioner

Jhunjhunbalji Motors Pvt.Ltd., Jhunjhunu vs. ACIT, Circle-Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu

ITA 343/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 151(2)

Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

ITA 326/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Completion Of Assessment By Passing A Speaking Order.

For Appellant: Shri S.L.Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 45

facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred in not admitting the additional evidence submitted by the asessee under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 along with application for admitting the additional evidences. 2.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 to 3 of the assessee ... decision given by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of C. Unnikrishnan Vs CIT (1998) reported in 233 ITR 485 that Rule 46A provides certain conditions and situations under which an additional evidence can be filed before the CIT(A). Where the material on record makes

Kisan Sewa Samiti Phagi Jaipur, Panchwati Marg vs. DCIT Circle 7, Lal Kothi Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 136/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 144Section 271(1)

before the Bench, the assessee has moved an application for filing additional evidence under wrong provisions of Rule 46A of I.T. Rules and wanted to file documents in support of its contentions in the shape of bank account, cash receipts, complete list of donors with their identity

Seema Heera, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) (It) - 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 517/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271Section 274Section 54

against long-term capital gain accrued on the sale of immovable property. These submissions were made in compliance with Rule 46A which were admitted and accepted by the Ld. CIT(A). In this respect a remand report was called from the Ld. Assessing Officer which was submitted

Adm Agro Industries Kota & Akola Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 51/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roym/S. Adm Agro Industries Kota & Vs. Dcit, Circle 1 (1), Akola Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Third Floor, Vatika Professional Point, Golf Course Extension Road, Sector – 66, Gurgaon – 122 018 (Haryana). (Pan : Aabcs9646L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate Shri Utkarsh Kr. Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Amisha Gupt, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Order : 10.07.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-I, New Delhi Dated 05.11.2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That, In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer ('Ao') Dated 30.12.2017 U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act,1961 ('The Act'), As Upheld By Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ('Cit(A)') Dated 05.11.2019 & Also The Additions

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in rejecting application for admission of additional evidence u/ Rule 46A moved by the Appellant, which contained MBP on the basis of which Valuation Report dated 09.09.2014 was prepared. The said rejection is without any basis ... evidence once the remand report was called for from the AO. The CIT(A) accepts that the said document should have been admitted u/ Rule 46A,however, he blindly follows the observations of the AO. 4 13. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case

Shiv Kumar Jolly, Jammu vs. DCIT (Intl. Tax), Chandigarh

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

ITA 721/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rishab Singla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 69A

aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before him, the asssessee sought permission to file additional evidence under Rule 46A and it was also submitted that there was only cash deposit of Rs. 7,50,000/- in the Canara Bank and the source ... wherein the AO reiterated the findings in the assessment order and thereafter the Ld. CIT(A) stated that the assessee application under Rule 46A does not quantify to the ground submitted in the appeal and the assessee’s appeal was summarily dismissed. 4. Against the said finding and the direction