← 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

DCIT CC, 4(3), Mumbai vs. Rajendra Mulchand Varma, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3592/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair,Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

Before the ld. CIT(A), assessee furnished additional evidences to substantiate his claim in respect of addition made by the AO by resorting to Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962(‘the Rules’). The details of additional evidences furnished by the assessee is extracted below, as reproduced ... furnished the required documents and details before the ld. CIT(A) as additional evidence by 9 Rajendra Mulchand Varma, AY 2018-19 complying with rule 46A of the Rules. Remand report called from the ld. AO on these additional evidence does not suggest anything adverse on the same nor does

Pankaj Kumar Kasera, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 46(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5898/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshasstt. Yr: 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 147

assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). 4.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted an application under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidences. The copy of documents filed along with the application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 are placed at Pages ... Paper Book. The assessee also submitted complete ledger accounts of the following expenses along with the application filed under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962:- i. Computer Repair & Maintenance ii. Conveyance Expenses iii. Diwali expenses iv. General Expenses v. Interest paid on loan taken from other parties

DCIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Hindustan Td, Mumbai

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

ITA 2218/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR
Section 14A

Rule 8D(2)(ii) & 8D(2)(iii), by admitting fresh evidences furnished by the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings in contravention of Rule 46A of the 11 Rules 1962 without providing any opportunity to the AO to represent the same." "2. Whether on the facts and circumstances

Bajaj Hindustan Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2059/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR
Section 14A

Rule 8D(2)(ii) & 8D(2)(iii), by admitting fresh evidences furnished by the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings in contravention of Rule 46A of the 11 Rules 1962 without providing any opportunity to the AO to represent the same." "2. Whether on the facts and circumstances

Computer Modelling Group Limited, Canada vs. ACIT International Taxation Circle 1(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

ITA 2091/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in not admitting the additional evidence filed by the appellant under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 6. Without prejudice to the aforesaid grounds, the Appellant further raises the below mentioned grounds: (A) That on the facts ... whichever is more beneficial at the option of the assessee. Vide written submission dated 12.10.2022, assessee filed application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (the “Rules”) and written submission which have been reproduced by the Ld. CIT (A) at pages

Computer Modelling Group Limited, Canada vs. DCIT Circle International Taxation 1(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

ITA 2090/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in not admitting the additional evidence filed by the appellant under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 6. Without prejudice to the aforesaid grounds, the Appellant further raises the below mentioned grounds: (A) That on the facts ... whichever is more beneficial at the option of the assessee. Vide written submission dated 12.10.2022, assessee filed application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (the “Rules”) and written submission which have been reproduced by the Ld. CIT (A) at pages

Computer Modelling Group Limited, Canada vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2)(1), Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

ITA 2305/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in not admitting the additional evidence filed by the appellant under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 6. Without prejudice to the aforesaid grounds, the Appellant further raises the below mentioned grounds: (A) That on the facts ... whichever is more beneficial at the option of the assessee. Vide written submission dated 12.10.2022, assessee filed application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (the “Rules”) and written submission which have been reproduced by the Ld. CIT (A) at pages

Associated Teckno Plastic Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 3(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 179/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

Notice u/s 143(2) is unlawful and is liable to be quashed. 3. The rejection of the application of the appellant filed under Rule 46A for furnishing the Purchase Deeds of the property sold by the appellant and confirmation of addition of Rs.1,02,52,000/- (the sale proceeds ... property. 10. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 11. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed application under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidences. The ld. CIT(A) after obtaining the remand report from the Assessing Officer and after obtaining the rejoinder from

Sanjeev Mittal, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Circle- II, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7454/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(3)Section 68

circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in law in admitting the additional evidences under clause (c) & (d) of Rule 46A(1) whereas neither of the clause is applicable ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was right ... assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During appeal proceedings the assessee requested for admittance of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (the “Rules”). It was submitted that clause (c) and (d) of the Rule 46A(1) is attracted

Vijaider Singh Sen, Kullu vs. Income Tax Officer, Pirdi Kullu

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

ITA 546/CHANDI/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 May 2024AY 2011-2012

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kumar, ITP and Shri Raman Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 253Section 44ASection 69A

been held in a number of cases including in Keshav mills co. Ltd. Vs CIT(1965) 1TR 365(SC) and now recognized as rule 46A that the ITAT appellate Authority has a right to admit the additional evidence in the interest of justice. I therefore requested to accord kind permission

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2)(1), Mumbai, Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate vs. Jsw Jaigarh Port Limited, Bandra(East)

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3345/MUM/2023[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit-5(2)(1), Jsw Jaigarh Port Ltd., 5Th Floor, R.N. 571, 5Th Floor, Jsw Centre, Bandra Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Churchgate, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabcj 7959 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rakesh Joshi Revenue By : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, DR

disallowance made of depreciation claim Rs.6,94,43,326/ depreciation claim Rs.6,94,43,326/- admitting the additional evidences admitting the additional evidences under Rule 46A even though the assessee has not under Rule 46A even though the assessee has not fulfilled the following fulfilled the following conditions under Rule ... 46A: a. Where the [Assessing Officer] has refused conditions under Rule 46A: a. Where the [Assessing Officer] has refused conditions under Rule 46A: a. Where the [Assessing Officer] has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted; or b. Where the to admit evidence which ought to have

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jsw Jaigarh Port Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3342/MUM/2023[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit-5(2)(1), Jsw Jaigarh Port Ltd., 5Th Floor, R.N. 571, 5Th Floor, Jsw Centre, Bandra Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Churchgate, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabcj 7959 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rakesh Joshi Revenue By : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, DR

disallowance made of depreciation claim Rs.6,94,43,326/ depreciation claim Rs.6,94,43,326/- admitting the additional evidences admitting the additional evidences under Rule 46A even though the assessee has not under Rule 46A even though the assessee has not fulfilled the following fulfilled the following conditions under Rule ... 46A: a. Where the [Assessing Officer] has refused conditions under Rule 46A: a. Where the [Assessing Officer] has refused conditions under Rule 46A: a. Where the [Assessing Officer] has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted; or b. Where the to admit evidence which ought to have

Deshraj Kasana, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3663/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 144Section 147Section 148

account in the sum of Rs. 64,88,690/-. 3 5. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee filed additional evidences in terms of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. The learned CIT(A) sought for a remand report from the learned AO with regard to those additional evidences

Incometax Officer, Nungambakkam vs. Aaditra Foundations, Anna Nagar, Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1081/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1081/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ito M/S. Aaditra Foundations बनाम/ Old No.76 New No.54, 1St Floor, U Non-Corporate Ward-7(1) Vs. Chennai. Block, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aayfa-3288-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)-Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Y. Sridhar (Ca)- Ld.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-03-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-04-2024

For Appellant: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sridhar (CA)- Ld.AR
Section 147Section 46A

order of the learned CIT(A) may be set aside and the Assessing Officer restored. The Ld. Sr. DR advanced arguments on violation of Rule 46A. The Ld. AR submitted that factual findings have been rendered in the impugned order which need not be interfered with. Having heard rival submissions ... assessee. Therefore, the adjudication of Ld. CIT(A) could not be faulted with. 6. The prime grievance of the revenue is violation of Rule 46A. However, Ld. CIT(A) has already rendered factual findings after examining the documentary evidence as filed by the assessee. It is another fact that when

Income Tax Officer Ward 59 6, New Delhi vs. Mamta Sehgal, Dilshad Garden

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

ITA 3860/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhaneshta, Sr. DR

admitting additional evidences in view of the fact that the assessee was not entitled to produce/submit additional evidences within the meaning of provisions of Rule 46A(10 of the I.T. Rules, 1962 as the assessee was provided reasonable opportunity to produce documentary evidences to substantiate his claim during the assessment

Tribhuvan Sharda, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6 (2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 199/JPR/2024[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 148Section 151Section 69

unexplained cash has been deposited in to the bank. During the Physical hearing before the Ld. CIT(A)II, Jaipur, an application under rule 46A was submitted for submission of additional evidence in the matter and based on such application the Ld. CIT(A) directed the concerned Assessing Officer

Kuldeep Kishore Sharma, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 602/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) a
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 153CSection 69A

account of Kuldeep Sharma was not filed during the assessment proceeding therefore, it may be accepted as additional evidence as per the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.” On this aspect of the matter we have gone through the order

Kuldeep Kishore Sharma, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 601/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) a
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 153CSection 69A

account of Kuldeep Sharma was not filed during the assessment proceeding therefore, it may be accepted as additional evidence as per the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.” On this aspect of the matter we have gone through the order

Chaudhary Stone Crusher, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Saharanpur

In the result of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2314/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganeshchaudhary Stone Crusher, Vs. Ito, C/O. Sh. C. S. Anand, Ward-3(1), Advocate, 104, Pankaj Saharanpur, Tower, 10, L. S. C. Savita Vihar, Delhi-92 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagfc5621D Assessee By : Shri C. S. Anand, Adv Revenue By : Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2024

For Appellant: Shri C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50C

observed that though the assessee has filed additional evidence as stated above, no petition has been filed in terms of Rule 46A(1) of the Income Tax Rules and accordingly ld CIT(A) proceeded not to admit these additional evidence and upheld the action of the ld AO ultimately

Mallanagouda Ninganagouda Patil, Bilagi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bagalkot

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

ITA 430/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Mudnur, CA
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 69A

natural justice. In ITAT Mumbai case of Avan Gidwani Vs. ACIT — ITA No. 5138/Mum/2015 Dt. 6-4-2016, wherein it is held that "Rule 46A cannot override the principles of natural justice'. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in invoking the provisions of rule 46A even when the assessment completed ... before the Ld.AO by the assessee. It is noted from the impugned order that assessee had filed application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A which has also been rejected as the same were not submitted before the Ld.AO. 2.3 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), assessee