← All Phrases

“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
85
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
58
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
55
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

Lumis Biotech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 7(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2128/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh ShahFor Respondent: ShriManoj Kumar Sinha (SR.DR.)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35

circumstances beyond its control. 2. The Hon. CIT(A) was not justified in summarily rejecting the prayer for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A. 3. The Hon. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO were not justified in N.A. disregarding the genuine mistake of the accountant in claiming deduction U/S.35 ... placed that the assessee was unable to comply with the notice of the Ld.CIT(A). Further, the assessee filed the additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (in short, the ‘Rule’) but the Ld. CIT(A) without any detailed discussion and without any reason, entirely rejected

ACIT, Circle- 17(1), New Delhi vs. Moolchand Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 421/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate; and Shri R.P. Mall, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Anshul, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

facts and in circumstances of the case, Ld CIT(A) is justified in allowing appeal of the assessee by admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 during appellate proceedings even when the assessee had not fulfilled conditions as laid down under Rule 46A

Ketan Arvindbhai Patel, Sojitra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Anand

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

ITA 269/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kedar Vyas, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr. D.R
Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 144Section 250

assessee, AO , Petlad had jurisdiction to frame assessment against the assessee. The assessee also filed additional evidences before the ld. CIT(A) under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The ld. CIT(A) called for Remand Report from the AO. The Assessing Officer furnished the Remand Report before ... same was rectified and the demand payable was increased to 12,91,484/-. This is a case where additional evidences are produced under Rule 46A (1) of the Income tax Rules, 1962 has been submitted at the doorsteps of CIT(A) which could have been made available to the faceless

Vashistha Maheshbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Maheshbhai Amrutbhai Patel, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-3, Gandhinagar

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1327/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Maheshbhai Amrutbhai Patel Ito, Ward-3 Shiva Sadan, Vs Gandhinagar. Opp: Uma Sanskar Tirth National Highway-8 Chandrala, Dist. Gandhinagar Pan : Adzpp 6022 B

For Respondent: Ms.Neeju Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 68

evidences of the remaining loan creditors. He filed additional evidences to prove their genuineness. The ld.CIT(A) admitted the evidences in terms of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and after going through all the evidences found the genuineness of the source to be established with respect

Sarveswaran Deepa, Tambaram vs. National Faceless Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 23/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.23/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Sarveswaran Deepa, The Ito, No.18, Annanagar, Parvathy Nagar, Non-Corporate Ward-22(6), Alamelu Street, Old Perungalathur, Tambaram. Tambaram Taluk Kanchipuram District-600 063. [Pan: Axwpd 3112 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 144Section 24

addition of Rs.6,53,583/-. 8. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) taking note that the assessee had filed additional evidences without filing application under Rule 46A was pleased to decline admission of additional evidences; and was pleased to dismiss Sarveswaran Deepa :: 5 :: the appeal of the assessee

Income-Tax Officer 41(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Ajit Sakharam Chavan, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1921/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: ShriManoj Kumar Sinha (SR.DR.)
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed the additional evidence under Rule 46A of Income- tax Rules, 1962 (in brevity, ‘theRule’). The remand report was called for but after allowing several dates, the concerned Assessing Officer ... same to the 46[***] 47[Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the]48[Commissioner (Appeals)].” Relatedto the dispose of the additional evidence quick look of Rule 46A of the Rule:- “Rule 46A. Production of additional evidence before the [Joint Commissioner] (Appeals)] [and Commissioner (Appeals) (3) The [Joint Commissioner] (Appeals

Income-Tax Officer 41(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Ajit Sakharam Chavan, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1920/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: ShriManoj Kumar Sinha (SR.DR.)
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed the additional evidence under Rule 46A of Income- tax Rules, 1962 (in brevity, ‘theRule’). The remand report was called for but after allowing several dates, the concerned Assessing Officer ... same to the 46[***] 47[Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the]48[Commissioner (Appeals)].” Relatedto the dispose of the additional evidence quick look of Rule 46A of the Rule:- “Rule 46A. Production of additional evidence before the [Joint Commissioner] (Appeals)] [and Commissioner (Appeals) (3) The [Joint Commissioner] (Appeals

Prl Developers Private Limited, Mumbai City vs. Circle 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground V of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1031/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 3Section 56(2)(viib)

filed by the Appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that its case falls within the sub-clause (c) and (d) of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules") to the Act. GROUND NO. II: VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE: 1. On the facts

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tpg Capital India P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 3132/Mum/2019is

ITA 3283/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Mr. Porus F Kaka / Mr. Manish KanthFor Respondent: Ms. Dhivya Ruth J (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 250Section 92C(3)

comparable? 1.3 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in violating Rule 46A in accepting the additional evidence of financials of subsequent years of ITIL not produced before the TPO and adjudicating that ITIL to be included ... comparable? 1.3 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in violating Rule 46A in accepting the additional evidence of financials of subsequent years of ITIL not produced before the TPO and adjudicating that ITIL to be included

Asst CIT Cir 25(3), Mumbai vs. Nailesh S. Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as Partly Allowed

ITA 4847/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.4847/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बनधम/ Acit-25(3) Nailesh S Mehta Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th 102, Hiralaya, Plot No. 19, Jvpd Vs. Floor, Pratyakshakar Scheme Vile Parle (W), Mumbai- Bhavan, Bandra Kurla 400056. Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aczpm0898D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sumat Chadha Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/07/2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/07/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per B R Baskaran, Am: The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05- 04-2017 Passed By Ld Cit(A)-37, Mumbai & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2012-13. Following Issues Are Urged In This Appeal:- (A) Whether The Ld Cit(A) Was Right In Holding That The Compensation Received On Cancellation Of Flats Booked By The Assessee Is Genuine Business Income & Not Cash Credit Representing Accommodation Entry, Which Is Assessable As Income Of The Assessee Under The Head Income From Other Sources. (B) Whether The Ld Cit(A) Was Right In Deleting The Disallowance Made By The Ao U/S 14A Of The Act Read With Rule 8D Of I T Rules. (C) Whether The Decision Rendered By Ld Cit(A) In Respect Of Profits Generated In Commodity Derivatives & Loss Incurred In Trading In Futures & Option Is Correct.

For Appellant: Shri Sumat ChadhaFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT-DR
Section 14A

Mehta ITA. No.4847/Mum./2017 the assessee by considering the documents which were not produced before the AO and thus violated the provisions of Rule 46A of Income tax Rules. 3.2 The Ld A.R, on the contrary, submitted that the assessee is a partner in certain partnership firms, which are engaged ... notice that the Ld CIT(A) has not called for any remand report from the AO. Hence, we notice that there is violation of Rule 46A of Income tax Rules. In any case, it is the contention of the assessee that the flats were booked at the then prevailing market

Uma Maheswara Rao Bodapati, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 2(1), Hyderabad

ITA 292/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 292/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Uma Maheshwara Rao Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Bodapati, Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Atnpb5755D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Adv. T. Chaitanya Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Adv. T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 50C

gain as per provisions of section 50C of the Act on the ground that the assessee did not file additional evidences as prescribed under Rule 46A of I.T. Rules, 1961 and further the assessee could not controvert the findings of the Assessing Officer with supporting evidences. Therefore, rejected the argument ... assessee merely for the reason that the assessee has not filed a formal petition for computation of additional evidences in terms of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1961. The learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the appellant had entered into an agreement on 17/10/2014 and agreed

Jayved Agro Improve Pvt. Ltd., Banaskantha vs. The Dy.CIT, Gandhinagar Circle (Previously the DCIT, Bk Circle, Palanpur), Gandhinagar

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

ITA 988/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271

certain additional evidences before the ld. CIT(A), but the ld.CIT(A) did not call for remand report from the AO in terms of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, but dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Before ld. CIT(A) , the assessee submitted that the assessee ... before the Tribunal . The CIT(A) has not called for remand report from the AO on these additional evidences which led to breach of Rule 46A, and the ld. CIT(A) has also have not given his decision whether the additional evidences are to be admitted or not. The additional

Tpg Capital P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 3132/Mum/2019is allowedand appeal of the revenue bearing ITA 3283/Mum/2019 is dismissed

ITA 3132/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeetpg Capital India Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner Of 1004, The Capital, Plot No.C-70, Income-Tax, Circle-14(3)(1), Mumbai Room O.475, 4Th Floor, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Pan :Aabcn6660K Mumbai-400 020 Dcit-14(3)(1), Mumbai Vs Tpg Capital India Private Limited 1004, The Capital, Plot No.C-70, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 Pan :Aabcn6660K

For Appellant: Mr. Porus F Kaka / Mr. Manish KanthFor Respondent: Ms. Dhivya Ruth J (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 250Section 92C(3)

comparable? 1.3 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in violating Rule 46A in accepting the additional evidence of financials of subsequent years of ITIL not produced before the TPO and adjudicating that ITIL to be included

Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(4), Hyderabad vs. Sunil Kumar Kumar, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 76/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.76/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri Sunil Kumar Kumar Ward 9(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aqppk9880P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ch Rajeswara Reddy, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 01/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri CH Rajeswara Reddy, DR
Section 68

Assessing Officer without allowing an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine the additional evidences filed by the assessee in violation of Rule 46A of the Page 4 of 8 ITA No 76 of 2024 Sunil Kumar Kumar Income Tax Rules, 1962. Further, the Assessing Officer has brought

Khanna Infrabuild Private Limited 2000-1A, Sukhdev Nagar Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2 Ludhiana, Ludhiana

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 679/CHANDI/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jun 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 145(3)Section 153ASection 35ASection 69

this is a additional evidence which was not available at the time of assessment proceedings, the same may be admitted as additional evidence under Rule 46A since the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause in not submitting the same to the Ld. AO and reference was drawn

Khanna Infrabuild Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle)-2, Ludhiana

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 668/CHANDI/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jun 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 145(3)Section 153ASection 35ASection 69

this is a additional evidence which was not available at the time of assessment proceedings, the same may be admitted as additional evidence under Rule 46A since the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause in not submitting the same to the Ld. AO and reference was drawn

Khanna Infrabuild Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle)-2 Ludhiana, Ludhiana

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 663/CHANDI/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jun 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 145(3)Section 153ASection 35ASection 69

this is a additional evidence which was not available at the time of assessment proceedings, the same may be admitted as additional evidence under Rule 46A since the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause in not submitting the same to the Ld. AO and reference was drawn

Bsk Agencies, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Warangal

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

ITA 266/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.266/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Bsk Agencies Vs. Income Tax Officer Warangal Ward 1 Pan:Aagfb1285Q Warangal (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate S. Sandhya रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate S. SandhyaFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin DR
Section 115Section 143(2)Section 69A

NFAC rejected the request of the assessee on a hyper technical basis saying that no formal application has been filed by the assessee under Rule 46A demonstrating why the evidence has not been produced by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. In our view, the rules of procedure as enumerated ... under Rule 46A is a procedure to ensure fair free adjudication of the appeal and is provided under Rules to advance ends of justice and not to be a road blocker in the ends of justice. The rules are handmade tools to achieve the ultimate goal of justice

Bollam Sampath Kumar Jewellers Private Limited, Warangal vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 265/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 265/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Bollam Sampath Kumar Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Jewellers (P) Ltd Circle 3(1) Warangal Hyderabad Pan:Aafcb4496H (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate S. Sandhya रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate S. SandhyaFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271ASection 69A

NFAC rejected the request of the assessee on a hyper technical basis saying that no formal application has been filed by the assessee under Rule 46A demonstrating why the evidence has not been produced by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. In our view, the rules of procedure as enumerated ... under Rule 46A is a procedure to ensure fair free adjudication of the appeal and is provided under Rules to advance ends of justice and not to be a road blocker in the ends of justice. The rules are hand made tools to achieve the ultimate goal of justice

Agarwal Sponge & Energy Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 59/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.59/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Agarwal Sponge & Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Energy (P) Ltd., Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaeca8680P (Respondent) (Appellant) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, Ca रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/06/2024 आदेश / Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M: This Appeal Is Filed By Agarwal Sponge & Energy (P) Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad (“Ld.Cit(A)”) Dated 31.08.2017 For A.Y.2010-11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Concise Grounds: "1. The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) Dated 31/8/2017 Is Contrary To Law & Facts.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: : Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 43

submitted that the same was also filed before the Ld.CIT(A) on page Nos.4 & 5 and 25 & Page 12 26 of the petition under Rule 46A. Further, with regard to other differences in the case of other five creditors, the Ld. AR submitted that if an opportunity is given ... also submitted that the same was also filed before the Ld.CIT(A) on page Nos.4 & 5 and 25 & 26 of the petition under Rule 46A. We have gone through the submissions filed by the Ld. AR and are of the opinion that the same is required to be verified from