“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

Om Shanti Reltors, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-20(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4113/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharshi & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanom Shanti Realtors Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- Omkar House, Off Eastern 20(2)(3) Highway, Opp. Sion Chunnabhatti 2Nd Floor, 210, Piramal Signal, Sion East, Mumbai – 400 Chambers, Parel, Mumbai – 022. 400 012. Pan: Aabfo1844K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

relevant and reproduced as under: “9. We are also of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of this case, even under rule 46A of the Rules the assessee should have been allowed to produce Om Shanti Realtors the additional evidence. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, in our view ... holding that the case of the assessee did not fall in any of the four exceptions set out in sub-rule (1) of rule 46A. In fact, the present case would fall under clause (c) of subrule (1) of rule 46A because the assessee had no occasion to collect this

Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Sangli., Aayakar Bhavan vs. Shri. Chandraprabhanath Digambar V.K.S. Society Ltd, Ashta, Tal Walwa, Dist Sangli

ITA 280/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 69BSection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

duly admitted the assessee’s additional evidence(s) in respect of it’s sec.80P deduction claim after complying with the necessary requirements under Rule 46A of I.T. Rules, 1962. The learned CIT-DR could hardly dispute that the Assessing Officer had further submitted his remand report before the NFAC verifying

ACIT, Circle-27(1), New Delhi vs. Usha Breco Limited, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8542/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Vs. Usha Breco Ltd, Circle-27(1), New 701, Surya Kiran Delhi Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacu4023E

For Appellant: Ms. Sangeeta Sigh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 40A(7)Section 68

After giving a thorough consideration to the findings of the CIT(A), we are of the considered view that the additional evidence admitted under Rule 46A, remand report of the AO on the additional evidence and the rejoinder filed by the assessee in response to the remand report form

Manush Commodities (P) Ltd., Howrah vs. ITO, Ward-15(3), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 612/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

decided the case ex-parte. So much so the Ld. CIT(A) has not admitted the additional evidences has filed by the assessee under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules comprising bank statement, balance sheet, audited account, auditors report etc. In our opinion, no one should be condemned unheard

Napc Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 2(1), Chennai

ITA 598/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.598/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Napc Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 1A, Royal Court, First Floor, Income Tax, No.41, Venkatnarayana Road, Central Circle 2(1) T. Nagar, Chennai Chennai 600 017. [Pan: Aaccn 3625P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. S. Easwar, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.05.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. S. Easwar, IRS, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) called remand report from the AO on additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 46A. AO submitted his detailed remand report on 06.06.2023. On the issue of disallowance u/s 2(24)(x) r.w.s36(1)(va) of the Act, AO submitted

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Madurai vs. Veeranan Ramu, Madurai

ITA 877/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.876/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.877/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit Shri Veeranan Ramu बनाम/ International Taxation, 1/427, Vellalur Village, Madurai. Vellalur, Melur Taluk Vs. Madurai-625 105. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Ayfpr-6051-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Y. Sridhar (Ca)- Ld.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-04-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sridhar (CA)- Ld.AR

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(vii)

assessment order. 2. The Ld. CIT-DR advanced arguments and pleaded for violation of Rule 46A. The Ld. AR, on the other hand, supported the impugned order. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, our adjudication would be as under. 3. Assessment Proceedings 3.1 The assessee being

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Madurai vs. Veeranan Ramu, Madurai

ITA 876/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sridhar (CA)- Ld.AR

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(vii)

Kissan Petro Oils P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-14(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1338/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Vs Kissan Petrol Oils Pvt. Ltd., Circle-14(2), D-10, South Extn., Part Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 002. Pan: Aadck0136D Co No.81/Del/2022 (Ita No.4700/Del/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kissan Petrol Oils Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, D-10, South Extn., Part Ii, Circle-14(2), New Delhi – 110 002. New Delhi Pan: Aadck0136D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Krishnan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

even ledger account were not produced and, accordingly, the additions were made. However, before CIT(A) additional evidences were filed taking rescue to Rule 46A which was admitted after a remand report. Copy of the remand report is made available to us at pages 40-51 of the paper book

Prabhu Dayal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 45(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 381/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12 Prabhu Dayal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M-156, Raghubir Nagar, Ward 45(1), New Delhi-1100 37 New Delhi Pan :Afepd3762K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148

admitting the additional evidences filed by the appellant. In this regard, as we go through the application for additional evidences under Rule 46A filed before the CIT(A) available at page 61 of the paper book along with relevant copies of documents like sale deed through which the property

ACIT Circle-14(2), New Delhi vs. Kissan Petrol Oils Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4700/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

ACIT, Circle - 19(1), New Delhi vs. Redkite Capital P. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6742/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

date of advances made by the appellant to Manglam Vanijya. 8.8. In order to substantiate his case, the appellant had moved an application under Rule 46A of the I. T. Rules, 1962 wherein the appellant had filed copies of account of the aforesaid four companies in the books of Manglam ... also for filing of confirmation from Manglam Vanijya for receipt of interest on debentures sold. Copies of the application under Rule 46A as well as the appellant’s submissions as filed during the course of appeal were forwarded to the AO for the purpose of verification. 8.9. The AO submitted

Dilip Kumar Roy, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-32(3), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1256/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

before the Assessing Officer. Notwithstanding the same, he was also given the opportunity of filing evidence, if any, during the appeal proceedings, subject to Rule 46A of the IT Rules. However, the assessee has not submitted any evidence to substantiate his claim of having cash balances, in his business account

Mr. Farooq Hajigaffar Motorwala, Mumbai vs. ITO, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 210/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhariassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 68

directly from the bank”, ultimately held that in his considered opinion, the Assessee’s case for admission of additional evidence is not covered under rule 46A(1)(b)(c) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short “the Rules”) and consequently dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. We have

Rajeev Suresh Patodia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 26(3)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 4317/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhariassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Kumar, D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessee on 12.09.2023 has filed the paper book containing pages No.1 to 109 in the first appellate proceedings which are documents including application under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules (in short ‘the Rules’) for producing the additional evidences and relevant extract of bank statement of Mr. Rajeev Patodia ... attention to the e- proceeding response acknowledgment No.499767051021123 i.e. dated 02.11.2023 (page No.169 and 170) contended that the assessee has submitted an application, under rule 46A of the Rules along with certain documents as well as written submissions in support of Assessee’s claim, which goes to show that

Rajeev Bhasin, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only with consequences to follow as per directions above

ITA 3901/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shobha Bhasin, Vs Ito, L/H Of Late Shri Rajeev Bhasin, Ward 2(2), 914, Hamilton Road, Ghaziabad. Kashmere Gate, New Delhi - 110 006. Pan: Aaapb2220R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Baldev Raj, Ca & Shri Manish Upneja, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.12.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) Arising Out Of The Appeals Before It Against The Orders Passed U/Ss 144/147 & Ita No.3897/Del/2023 271(1)(C), Respectively, Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), Respectively, By The Ito, Ward-2(2), Ghaziabad (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Baldev Raj, CA &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)

application, the appeal was decided. On page No.1 of Part- C(A) of the paper book the copy of the additional evidence application under Rule 46A filed before the NFAC is also filed. The ld. DR could not dispute the aforesaid facts. 3. In the light of the aforesaid

Rajeev Bhasin, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only with consequences to follow as per directions above

ITA 3897/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Baldev Raj, CA &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)

Brij Bhushan Gupta, Haryana vs. DCIT, Int. Taxation, Gurgoan

In the result, the issue stands remitted to the file of the AO for

ITA 2218/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Sabarwal, Adv. and Shri Rajan Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT- DR

Section 120Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

Officer has not followed the directions issued by the Ld. DRP wherein the additional evidences submitted by the assessee have been duly accepted under Rule 46A and specific directions have been given to the AO. It was submitted by both the parties that the directions issued by the DRP have

Annamalai Gunasekaran, Salem vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Salem, Salem

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

ITA 82/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.82/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Shri Annamalai Gunasekaran, The Dy. Commissioner – Proprietor, Classic Brower, 391, Of Income Tax, T.V.K. Road,, Ammapet, Salem. Circle-1(1), Salem. [Pan: Afapg 1043 C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sri Krishna, CA (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 6

given liberty to file additional evidences as per Rules; and if the assessee files additional/new evidences, the Ld.CIT(A) to act in accordance to Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, and call for Remand Report from the AO and in such an Annamalai Gunasekaran :: 4 :: event, assessee

Arunachalam Associates, Chenniai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward-15(1), Cennaii

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 606/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.605/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Arunachalam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 21/3, Old No.43A, Non Corporate Ward 15(1) 2Nd Avenue Road, Chennai 600 034. Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai 600 020. [Pan: Adwpa 9208M] आयकरअपील सं./ Assessment Year: 2012-13) (िनधा"रणवष" / Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Arunachalam Associates Non Corporate Ward 15(1) 21/3, Old No.43A, Chennai 600 034. 2Nd Avenue Road, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai 600 020. [Pan: Aanfa 6942L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. N.V. Krishnan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. S. Easwar, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.05.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. N.V. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. S. Easwar, IRS, JCIT

Section 147Section 68

before Ld.CIT(A), appellant filed written submissions alongwith certain documents but Ld.CIT(A) considered those documents as additional evidence under Rule 46A(1) hence rejected the same as not admissible. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. Ld.Counsel submitted that the matter required to set aside

Arunachalam, Chennai vs. ITO, Non-Corp Ward-15(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 605/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. N.V. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. S. Easwar, IRS, JCIT

Section 147Section 68