“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

Kamalam Sambandam Alagiri Educational and Charitable Trust, Cuddalore vs. ITO, Delhi

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

ITA 585/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.585/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Kamalam Sambandam Alagiri The Ito (Exemptions), Educational & Charitable Trust, Ward-2, 069, Thirupaninatham, Chennai. Ennanagaram & Post, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore-604 001. [Pan: Aabtk 6500 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishnan Ramaswamy

Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)

assessee. However, no petition has been filed by the assessee for admission of additional evidence justifying and explaining as to under which Clause of Rule 46A(1), the assessee's case is covered and as to why the additional evidence should be admitted. Therefore, I am of the considered view

Income Tax Officer, Itarsi vs. Nadeem Khan, Pipariya

In the result appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 37/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniito, Shri Nadeem Khan

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69ASection 69C

basis of additional evidence submitted by the assessee without following the due procedure required under rule 46A of Income Tax Rules. 2 on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 10051500/- on account of unexplained expenditure ... basis of additional evidence submitted by the assessee without following the due procedure required under rule 46A of Income Tax Rules. 3. The Ld. DR has submitted that it is a case of no-return of income filed by the assessee and on the basis of information received

Vijay Yeshwant Pangam, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 34(3)(7), Mumbai

In the result all the grounds of appeal are allowed with above direction

ITA 4653/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 4653/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18) Vijay Yeshwant Pangam Vs. Ito, Ward 34(3)(7) 25-C, B-Wing, Flat No. 304, Kautilya Bhavan Rmms Sector C-41 To C-43 Gokul Dham, Goregaon-E G-Block, Bkc Maharashtra-400 063. Bandra East Mumbai-400 051. Pan : Apepp6032J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ravi Gupta Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024 O R D E R

Section 144Section 69A

subsequently. For this, the assessee should make an application and also the learned CIT – A is required to pass an order under rule 46A of the income tax rules. Merely because something is stated in form number 35, the assessee cannot be prevented from adducing additional evidence subsequently till ... file of the learned CIT – A with a direction to the assessee to make an application for admission of additional evidence under rule 46A, the learned CIT – A must pass a speaking order either admitting or not admitting those evidence. If he admits, a necessary remand report is should

Sh. Aman Seth, Ludhiana vs. ITO, W-1(1), Ludhiana

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

ITA 1318/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 36Section 44A

made supplemented with documentary evidences which were additional evidences and no prayer was made for admission of the same as prescribed by Rule 46A of the Act. 10. We are not in agreement with the Ld.CIT(A) on both the counts. The Act allows the remedy of appeal ... additional evidences were filed which were not accompanied by an application for admitting the same as prescribed by the Income Tax rules under Rule 46A in this regard. In fact we find that the assessee had raised a contention based on proposition of law laid down by courts ,which

Shri Ganesh Urban Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 196/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.196/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2017-18 Shri Ganesh Urban V The Income Tax Officer, Cooperative Credit Society S Ward-1(1), Aurangabad. Limited, Main Market, Sarafa Galli, Sillod, Auranbabad – 431112. Pan: Aagas6006D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Act, Dated 05.12.2023 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Being Aggrieved By The Order Of Ld. Cit (A), Income Tax Department, Nfac U/S. 250 Of The It Act, 1961 Vide Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1058480083(1), Dated 05/12/2023. The Said Order Is Passed By Dismissing Appeal Filed By The Appellant Society Against The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Ward 1(4), Aurangabad, [Now Ward 1(1), Aurangabad] Hence The Appellant Society Shri Ganesh Urban Cooperative Credit Society Limited [A]

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 69ASection 80Section 80P(2)(a)

erred on facts and in law in ignoring the application for Production of Additional Evidence before CIT (A) under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 filed by the appellant society dated 04/12/2023. 4) The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the interest charged u/s 234B and 234C

Sanjay Kumar Singh, Kolkata vs. ACIT, E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 453/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Ray, Advocate, Shri S. N. Patra & ShriFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

course of the appeal before us are produced before the Ld. CIT(A) who, may call for the remand report of the AO under rule 46A of the I. T. Rules, 1962, and, thereafter, decide the appeal on merit as sub-section (6) of section 250 requires that while deciding

Madan Lal Sharma, Dausa vs. ITO Ward, Dausa

ITA 166/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 147Section 270ASection 274Section 69Section 69A

appeal. He has also placed on record, copy of an application submitted to Learned CIT(A)/NFAC seeking permission to lead additional evidence under Rule 46A(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 7. Learned DR for the department has opposed the contention raised on behalf of the assessee

Madan Lal Sharma, Dausa vs. ITO Ward, Dausa

ITA 165/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 147Section 270ASection 274Section 69Section 69A

ACIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mediacom Communications Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 68/MUM/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Acit 2(2)(1) Vs. Mediacom Room No. 545, 5 Th Floor Communications Private Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, 349 Business M.K. Road, Point, Western Express Maharashtra - 400020 Highway Andheri Eeast Maharashtra – 400059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcm6252N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Smiti Samant

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 41(1)

admitting in deciding the appeal admitting the additional evidence produced by the assessee without giving the opportunity to the revenue in violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rule 1962? P a g e | 2 ACIT, 2(2)(1) Vs. Mediacom Communication Pvt. Ltd. Ground No. 3: On the facts

Rajesh Govind Rao, Mumbai vs. ITO-42(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 269/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 50CSection 68

Mumbai (The A.O.) citing non attendance, ignoring the submissions made during the manual hearing, and also ignoring the additional evidence filed under Rule 46A of the Act before the CIT(A) during physical hearing, which is bad at law. The Appellant did not receive any notices from NFAC

M/S. Alang Metal Exim Pvt. Limited., Bhavnagar vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Bhavnagar

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

ITA 2329/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Alang Metal Exim Pvt.Ltd. The Acit Shop No.3, Arpan Flat Vs Circle-1 Shishuvihar Circle, Bhavnagar Bhavnagar – 364 001 (Gujarat) Pan:Aaeca 9651 Q ….. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Adv. & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13 /06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20-9-2018 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–6, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”] In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.7,00,00,000/- Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) & Disallowance Of Rs.3,30,000/- Out Of Loading & Unloading Charges Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”) In His Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. M/S.Alang Metal Exim Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Acit Asst. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

assessee placed following documents relating to share applicants as additional evidence before the Ld.CIT(A) by filing an application under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962: i. Acknowledgment of ITR ii. Confirmation iii. Bank statement of share applicant M/s.Alang Metal Exim Pvt.Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst. Year ... evidence to the AO. The AO in his remand report stated that since the case is not covered by exceptional circumstances as mentioned in Rule 46A and the assessee was given sufficient opportunity during the course of assessment, the assessee’s request to produce the additional evidence be rejected

Manoj Mulchand Bramhecha, Aurangabad vs. ITO, Ward1(1), Aurangabad

ITA 507/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: For Revenue : Shri Ramnath P MurkundeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 144Section 147Section 250(6)

assessments. 3. We noticed in this factual backdrop that the assessee had filed his additional evidence in the lower appellate proceedings in tune with Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. Learned NFAC sought for a remand report. The Assessing Officer duly submitted the same. Learned NFAC thereafter sought

Manoj Mulchand Bramhecha, Aurangabad vs. ITO, Ward1(1), Aurangabad

ITA 506/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: For Revenue : Shri Ramnath P MurkundeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 144Section 147Section 250(6)

Manoj Mulchand Bramhecha, Aurangabad vs. ITO, Ward1(1), Aurangabad

ITA 505/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: For Revenue : Shri Ramnath P MurkundeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 144Section 147Section 250(6)

Manoj Mulchand Bramheeha, Aurangabad vs. ITO Ward1(1), Aurangabad

ITA 504/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: For Revenue : Shri Ramnath P MurkundeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 144Section 147Section 250(6)

Indore Paraspar Sahakari Grah Nirman Sanstha Samiti, Indore vs. ACIT Circle 2(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/IND/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Indore Paraspar Sahkari Acit, Circle 2(1) Grih Nirman Sanstha Indore Vs. 224-Mishal Plaza, Tilakpath, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaaai2629G Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2024 O R D E R

Section 50CSection 69

identical issue in para 4 as under: “4. Learned Departmental Representative vehemently contends that the CIT(A) has violated the provision contained in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules in admitting assessee's additional evidence in the nature of its registered High School & Madressa Yusufiyan Society

Rakesh Vyas, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 295/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Meena, (Addl. CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

have carefully considered the facts of the case, assessment order and written submissions filed by the appellant. The appellant has filed additional evidence under rule 46A during appellate proceedings. The same is admitted and examined in the interest of justice. The Appellant has relied upon the various case laws which ... evidence. He stated that once the ld. CIT(A) has admitted the additional evidence by holding as “The appellant has filed additional evidence under rule 46A during the appellate proceedings. The same is admitted and examined in the interest of justice.” Thus, the additional evidence though admitted

Svc Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir.1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1072/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Before the CIT(A) the assessee submitted invoices and other documentary evidences in support of the purchase of software as additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules). The CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence and called for remand report from the AO. However

Mumbai Jnpt Port Road Co. Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 17(2), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 802/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Gs Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Khushboo Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anshul, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 80G

replies. Assessee filed an appeal before CIT (A) and submitted donation receipt as an evidence. But did not give an application in terms of Rule 46A for admitting additional evidence, but requesting for the same in statement of facts. Considering the same learned CIT(A) also did not allow ... deduction of donation u/c VI-A on the ground that the case did not fit under any of the four limbs of the Rule 46A(1) of the Income Tax Rules. Page 3 of 5 ITA No.- 802/Del/2023 Mumbai JNPT Port Road Company Ltd. 4. Though before

Yogendrabhai Bhogilalbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Vadodara

The appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 48/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2017-18 Niranjanaben Jayesh Patel Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1)(2) Legal Heir Of Late Vadodara. Shri Jayeshbhai Chandubhai Patel 19-I, Nita Nagar Society Kanjari Road, Halol-389 350, Gujarat Pan : Akzpp 6950 P. Assessment Year : 2017-18 Yogendrabhai Bhogilal Patel Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1)(2) Shri Yogendrabhai Bhogilalbhai Patel Vadodara. 82, Sri Nath Vihar Society Behind Vallabhcharya Hospital Baroda 390025 Pan : Bjxpp 0850 J.

Section 115BSection 250Section 263Section 69A

Tribunals and the Courts. 3. The Ld. NFAC erred on facts and in law in not appreciating and admitting the additional evidences furnished under Rule 46A in the interest of justice and to determine the real and true income of the appellant. 4. The Ld. NFAC erred on facts ... submitted during the course of assessment proceedings. However, such evidence was not appreciated by the AO. Additionally, the information disclosed by the assessee under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rues was also not admitted by the ld.CIT(A), which should have been admitted looking into the substantial quantum