← 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

Niranjanaben Jayeshkumar Patel L/H of Late Shri Jayeshbhai Chandubhai Patel, Halol vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(2), Vadodara

The appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 300/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

Hasmukhbhai Hansraj Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(7), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1377/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2015-16 Hasmukhbhai Hansraj Patel Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(3)(7) C-202, Suvas Residency Ahmedabad. Opp: Maghmalhar Society Nikol Road Ahmedabad 382350. Pan : Bpdpp 1078 Q

For Appellant: Shri Seem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 69A

assessee filed copy of bank statement, copy of cash book, purchase deed and Sale deed of land as well as additional application under Rule 46A and claimed that cash of Rs.20,500/- was deposited out of his regular source of business income and balance cash of Rs.1 crore is deposited

Prem Prakash Sethi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle 14 New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, Ground No.1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1741/DEL/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year 2018-19

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Pandey, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 69A

never confronted to the AO and no remand report was obtained either. 14. Keeping in mind, the salutary principles of natural justice on which Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules is founded upon, we consider it expedient to restore the matter to the file of the AO rather than

Techman Buildwell Private Lmited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-25(2), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed with the consequences following as per the

ITA 737/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Gs Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Arta Trana Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 68

ITAT Rules, 1963, for admitting additional evidences. 5. It is submitted that before the CIT(A), the Appellant had filed an application under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidence seeking permission to place on record the following material as additional evidence: (i) Confirmation and affidavit of Ms. Sonia Chikara

Techman Buildwell (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed with the consequences following as per the

ITA 1618/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Gs Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Arta Trana Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 68

ITAT Rules, 1963, for admitting additional evidences. 5. It is submitted that before the CIT(A), the Appellant had filed an application under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidence seeking permission to place on record the following material as additional evidence: (i) Confirmation and affidavit of Ms. Sonia Chikara

Income Tax Officer Ward 7(2)(1), Third Floor C Wing, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan Ambawadi Ahmedabad vs. Bharatkumar Dashrathbhai Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 202/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri J.L. Bhatia, Sr.D.R
Section 68

expenses and requested to admit additional I.T.A No. 202/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No. 4 ITO vs. Bharatkumar Dashrathbai Patel evidences keeping in view Rule 46A as the assessee was unable to submit during the assessment proceedings within the time allowed as it was time consuming as well as scanning ... have been incurred in the regular course of business. Accordingly, it is not an allowable expenditure. Regarding admissibility of additional evidences, keeping in view Rule 46A The admissibility regarding additional evidences submitted by the assessee before the Ld. C.LT (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad, the same may be allowed keeping in view

Shivanna HUF, Bengaluru vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 847/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Shreehari Kutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT – DR
Section 250Section 69

circumstances of the case. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law by not accepting the additional evidences produced under Rule 46A by holding that the evidences produced Page 3 are colourable device and against the human preponderance and consequently passed a perverse order in the facts

Paresh Valji Choudhary, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Mumbai

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

ITA 1045/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Pritesh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, (SR.DR)
Section 144Section 250Section 68Section 69A

learned C.I.T(A) ignored the submission made by the appellant filed along with appeal since application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A was not made by appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the order appealed before C.I.T.(A) was against order passed ... that the order was passed exparte by the appellate authority. The assessee was ready to file the additional evidence before Ld. CIT(A) under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The assessee is not conversant with the internet system, so the notices are not complied with

Mark Electronics Corporation, Dissolved vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 29(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3262/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Ao, Accordingly

Section 147

appeal before NFAC, Delhi 5. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal as well as filed additional evidences under Rule 46A, however, Ld. CIT(A) rejected the above additional evidences with the observation that the assessee has not filed the application for admission of additional evidences

Sunil Landmark LLP, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Pune

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

ITA 662/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.662/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sunil Landmark Llp, Vs. Acit, Circle-2, Pune. 562/9, Opp. Savarkar Bhavan, Shivajinagar, Pune- 411005. Pan : Aczfs2579P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.06.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.02.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Ao Without Considering Detailed Submissions Made By The Appellant In Respect Of Ground No.L To 5 & Deciding The Case In Summary Manner Without Any Speaking Order On The Legal Issues Raised Which Goes To Root Of The Assessment Proceedings By Deciding Ground No. 1 & 4 As General Grounds. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Assessment Order Passed By The Ao Is Bad In Law As Same Has Been Passed Without Considering The Submission Made By The Appellant Firm Within Appointed Date To The Show-Cause Notice Issued By The Ao

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the appellant has provided all the supporting as additional evidences as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. The facts, in brief

Gayatri Developers., Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 2(1), Kalyan, Mumbai

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

ITA 421/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri G. Santosh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 56(2)

that 4 ITA No.421/Mum/2024 - Gayatri Developer the addition made by the AO be deleted. The assessee submitted the above certificate as additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The CIT(A) rejected the additional evidence submitted by the assessee stating that the assessee did not produce sufficient ... submitted that even before the CIT(A) the assessee did not bring any sufficient cause to justify the admission of additional evidence under the Rule 46A. Therefore, the ld. DR argued that the CIT(A) has correctly upheld the addition. 6. We have heard the parties and perused the material

Varun Satyapal Singhal, Vadodara vs. The Incometax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3( Now the DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 636/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That He Shall Not Be Pressing For Ground Nos. 3, 4 & 5 Of His

Section 250Section 40ASection 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 41(1)Section 68

near future and such loans were taken without any security. In addition, we note that the assessee had also filed application under Rule 46A, in which the assessee had filed additional evidences in the form of Benchmarking Prime Lending Rate of SBI and Personal loan rates of SBI (reference Page ... record any cogent material based on which the impugned addition could be justified. Further, the assessee also filed application for additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. However, while passing the order, the Ld. CIT(A) has only upheld the order of the assessing officer without referring

Kalasa Lakshmanashetty Mahesh, Chikkamagaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax

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

ITA 792/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Golyan, CA
Section 250

attached in the Anneyzure-02 for your reference. 6. However, the documents/additional evidence has not been taken into cognizance as per the provisions of Rule 46A of income tax rules 1962. The same Submission is gain attached in the Annexure-02 for your reference. 7. A distinction should be recognized ... maintained between a case where the assessee invokes Rule 46A to adduce additional evidence before the CIT (A) and a. case where the CIT (A), without being prompted by the assessee, while dealing with the appeal, considers it fit to cause or make a further enquiry by virtue

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(3), Bengaluru vs. Praveen Reddy (HUF), Bengaluru

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

ITA 651/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sri Prasanna N. Uralal, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Parithivel V., D.R
Section 250(6)Section 50Section 54Section 54F

adequate opportunity to AO and get Remand report with his factual findings and observation after detailed examination to verify the Additional evidences submitted under Rule 46A. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in laws, the (ii) learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in finalising ... obtaining the Remand report called for from the AO with his factual findings and observations after detailed examination of the additional evidences submitted under Rule 46A. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in laws, the Learned (iii) CIT(A), NFAC erred in not making further efforts

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Revenue Building Queens Road, Bengaluru vs. Shri Giriyappa Dayananda, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the revenue and CO of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 543/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sri Mahesh Kumar L., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

circumstances of the case and in Law, the CIT(A) had gravely erred in admitting additional evidence without following the procedure laid down in Rule 46A of the Income tax Rules and as such denying the Assessing Officer a valuable right? iv. Whether on the facts and circumstances

Smt. Kalpna Garg, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

Appeal is allowed and the impugned order by learned CIT(A) as

ITA 303/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal, Feeling Dissatisfied With The Order Dated 31St Jan, 2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Which Relates To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Vide Impugned Order, Ld. Cit(A) Has Modified The Assessment Order Dated 21.12.2018 Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

evidence i.e. in the form of affidavit of Shri Kapil Khatri was not going to be held admissible, having regard to the provisions of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules. 29. Learned AR for the assessee has drawn our attention towards said affidavit sworn by Shri Kapil Khatri

Ganga Cotton & Allied Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 11(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1187/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2014-15 M/S. Ganga Cotton & Allied Vs. Ito Ward-11(3) Industries Ltd., New Delhi 7/2, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi – 110 008 Pan Aaacg3976E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Pulkit Saini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

assessment order dated 05.12.2016 by the Learned Assessing Officer (Learned “AO”) for the assessment year 2014-15 through which additional evidence was admitted under Rule 46A of Income Tax Act, 1961 and deleted the addition of Rs. 41,43,974/- representing alleged excess trade payable and held as bogus liability ... cause from filing the evidence during assessment proceedings which go to the root of issue involved, Learned CIT(A) admitted the following evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 as below:- Sr. No Name of Party Amount (In Rs.) Evidence (pages of Paper Book) i) M/s Deepak

Gobind Chhangomal Sajnani, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 185/JPR/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10
For Respondent: Sh. Vedant Agrawal (CA)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

hands of the appellant. 8. It is observed that all these are additional evidences. However, the appellant has never made any application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 for admission of additional evidences. The appellant is advised by a CA firm in Jaipur. The AR is well ... aware of the legal procedure. The appellant / AR has not shown any reason as to how the provisions of Rule 46A can be invoked in this case. Therefore, the additional evidences cannot be admitted at this stage without any application in this regard and without showing that this

Gobind Chhangomal Sajnani, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 184/JPR/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vedant Agrawal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

hands of the appellant. 8. It is observed that all these are additional evidences. However, the appellant has never made any application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 for admission of additional evidences. The appellant is advised by a CA firm in Jaipur. The AR is well ... aware of the legal procedure. The appellant / AR has not shown any reason as to how the provisions of Rule 46A can be invoked in this case. Therefore, the additional evidences cannot be admitted at this stage without any application in this regard and without showing that this

Sri Shankar Souhardha Pattina Sahakari Niyamit, Gulbarga vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in the above

ITA 877/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 156Section 2(24)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

wanted to file additional evidence, however, as per Ld. CIT(A), the appellant has failed to make out a case for additional evidence under Rule 46A and hence not allowed to file additional evidence. The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal, the said order