“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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Adoni vs. T Rama Subba Reddy, Adoni

ITA 1133/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

development expenditure of Rs.2,00,00,000/- to the assessee without any evidence and without giving any opportunity to the A.O. as required under Rule 46A to verify the claim of the assessee. 6. Any other additional ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing

Ponny Retails Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Circle 1 Ltu, Chennai

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

ITA 930/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, IRS, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

considered the same since assessee could not prove that it was prevented by sufficient cause mentioned in Sub-Rule (1) to Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and he confirmed the action of the ld. Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, by the order of the ld. CIT(A), assessee

Sameer Esmail Mohiyudin, Kurla (W), Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-35(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 53/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Pasale, D.R

Section 144Section 250

deed of the property, on which the long term capital gain was claimed by the Assessee, however failed to satisfy the clauses/parameters enshrines in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules 1962(in short “the Rules”) and therefore the Ld. Commissioner did not entertain the sale deed furnished

ACIT, Circle 2(1)(2) Int. Taxation, Delhi vs. Rajiv Kumar, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 158/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Bajpai, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 295(2)(mm)

basis of additional evidence submitted by the assessee and without calling for any remand report under Rule 46A. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,79,301/- on the basis of additional evidence without conducting ... remand report from the assessing officer which is in clear violation of Section 295(2)(mm) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing penalty

ACIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi vs. Diamond Tradex Co. Ltd, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6167/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 68

evidence which was forwarded in Paper-Book-1 to the assessing officer, DCIT, Circle-7(2), New Delhi on 09.06.2017 for his report under Rule 46A. Assessing officer sent his report on 09.06.2017 wherein it is stated, that he issued summons to all the three companies for their appearance

Vinod Kumar Sharma, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2(5), Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5648/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.5648/िद"ी/2018 (िन.व. 2014-15) Vinod Kumar Sharma, H.No B-302, 2Nd Floor, Swarna Jayanti Puram, Ghaziabad 201013, Up ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Asvps-3674-F बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Ward 2(5), Noida, Up अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 31.05.2018, For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Assailed The Order Of Cit(A) By Raising Following Grounds:- 1. Because In The Facts & On The Circumstances Of The Case The Impugned Order Is Bad & Against The Law As Such The Same Is Based On Surmises, Suspicion & Conjunctures Without Application Of Judicious Liable To Be Set Aside.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)

circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-(A), Noida did not consider the legitimate cogent evidences placed on record by the Appellant/Assesee under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules and further erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld. AO as under

Banur Brother, Patiala vs. ITO-Ward-1, Ambala

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by way of remand to Ld

ITA 772/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 253Section 270ASection 69A

assessment proceedings, the submissions and documents were submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) along with an application for admission of additional evidence under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 2.3.2 Thereafter, Ld. CIT(A) sent these documents to Ld. AO for a remand report. In the remand report ... requested to maintain the additions made in the Assessment Order. Additionally, Ld. AO urged Ld. CIT(A) not to admit additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, alleging potential manipulation. The Ld. AO further claimed that the facts presented by the Appellant in its submissions before

Satya Wati L/H of Late Sh. Radhay Lal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-34(6), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1371/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and filed detailed submissions. For the sake of clarity, the same is reproduced below:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 69Section 69A

only on 25th February, 2020. Further, he observed that in Form-35, there is no request for filing of any documentary evidence under Rule 46A, even though no details were filed nor available before the Assessing Officer when he completed the assessment proceeding under Section

Satya Wati L/H of Late Sh. Radhay Lal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 37(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1370/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and filed detailed submissions. For the sake of clarity, the same is reproduced below: “1. The appellant is an Agriculturist and has no income other than Interest on savings and term deposits in bank, during the previous relevant to assessment year under appeal.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 69Section 69A

Sujan Mohinder Charitable Trust, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 2(2) Exemption, New Delhi

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 539/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sujan Mohinder Charitable Trust, Vs Ito, 8, Eastern Avenue, Ward 2(2) Exemption, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 065. Pan: Aaats7083F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Vandana Bhandari, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ravi Kant Choudhary, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.12.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.Cit(A), Delhi-40/10374/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 28.12.2019 Passed U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), By The Ito, Exemption, Ward 2(2), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). The Assessee Is A Charitable Trust Created By A Trust Deed Dated 6Th March, 2. 1978 & Is Registered U/S 12A Of The Act. The Assessee’S Case Was Picked Up For Scrutiny & The Ao Examined The Cash Deposits Of Rs.34,53,730/- During The Demonetization Period & Further Observed That During The Relevant Assessment Year No Return Has Been Filed By The Assessee Either U/S 139 Of The Act Or In Response To Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act. Accordingly, The Assessment Was Completed U/S 144 Of The Act Making An Addition Of Rs.1,22,87,399/- U/S 69A Of The Act On Account Of Following Show Cause Notice:-

For Appellant: Ms Vandana Bhandari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 10BSection 11Section 119(2)Section 12ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in construing admission of Audit Report u/s 10B as additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rule, 1962, as condonation of the delay in filing Form no. 10B u/s 119(2) of the Income

Raman Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed, with consequences to follow as per the determination of the grounds, as above

ITA 2/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2014-15 Raman Gupta, Vs Acit, F-73, Preet Vihar, Central Circle-17, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Abapg1217G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Kapoor, CA &For Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)

Ketenere Global Ltd level closing balance of Rs. 16,80,748/-. The copy of which was given to ld CIT(A) with application under Rule 46A as additional 3 Raman Gupta evidence. Further, same was not considered. It was submitted that the cash book balance matches the cash recovered from ... pointed out that copies of all the bank account of Mr. Raman Gupta were filed before the ld CIT(A) along with application under Rule 46A to show that the said cheque was never credited in the accounts of the assessee up to 12.12.2013. It was submitted that

Mr. Mahadev Sahebrao Bangar, Ahmednagar vs. Income Tac Offcer, Ward-2, Ahmednagar

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 366/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S Bhandari &For Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

assessee filed certain details before the CIT(A) / NFAC and requested the CIT(A) / NFAC to admit the same as additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1963. However, the CIT(A) / NFAC rejected the contention of the assessee and dismissed the appeal by recording as under ... deliberate and without reasonable cause and appellant failed to justified. Appellant has failed to prove the admissibly of the additional evidence in view of rule 46A of the I.T. Act. There was no reasonable cause with the appellant for non compliance made during the course of assessment proceedings. Hence

Mr. Mahadev Sahebrao Bangar, Ahmednagar vs. Income Tac Offcer, Ward-2, Ahmednagar

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 365/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S Bhandari &For Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

Mr. Mahadev Sahebrao Bangar, Ahmednagar vs. Income Tac Offcer, Ward-2, Ahmednagar

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 364/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S Bhandari &For Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

Mr. Mahadev Sahebrao Bangar, Ahmednagar vs. Income Tac Offcer, Ward-2, Ahmednagar

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 363/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S Bhandari &For Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

Mr. Mahadev Sahebrao Bangar, Ahmednagar vs. Income Tac Offcer, Ward-2, Ahmednagar

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 362/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S Bhandari &For Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

Mr. Mahadev Sahebrao Bangar, Ahmednagar vs. Income Tac Offcer, Ward-2, Ahmednagar

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 361/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S Bhandari &For Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

Kulut Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Burdwan vs. ACIT, Cir-1, Burdwan.

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

ITA 1049/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Shuvo Chakraborty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 250

before the Ld. CIT(A) for admission of additional documents and the Ld. CIT(A) may allow an opportunity to the Ld. AO under Rule 46A of the I. T. Rules to examine the same and after receiving his comments, decide the appeal on merit in accordance with

Pankaj Gupta, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Chandigarh

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

ITA 484/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard Or Disposed Off. 4. That The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Erroneous, Arbitrary, Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case & Is, Thus, Untenable.” 3. Briefly The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 03/08/2018 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Was Asked To Provide Details Of The Asset Sold Along With Supporting Documentation Substantiating The Claim For Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg).

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shr Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)

been taken by the assessee before the ld CIT(A) in terms of lack of opportunity by the AO and secondly, no application under Rule 46A has been moved by the assessee before the ld CIT(A) seeking permission for furnishing the evidential evidence. 9. Further

Charmi Samir Patel, Karelibaug, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Vadodara

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

ITA 68/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: None (Written Submission)For Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 68

assessee has filed additional evidences before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has not called for remand report from the Assessing Officer. Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962 requires that in case additional evidences are submitted before ld. CIT(A) , then ld. CIT(A) is obligated ... call for the remand report from the Assessing Officer but no remand report was called for by the CIT(A). Reference is drawn to Rule 46A(3). It is quite un-usual that the assessee has made purchases/services from this party Shiv Shakti Earthmovers to the tune