“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

Rakesh Bhatia, Faridabad vs. ITO-Nwr -W-52(2) Faridabad- Haryana, Faridabad

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

ITA 422/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyarakesh Bhatia, Vs. Ito-Nmr-W-52 (2), 1J/17A, Nit, Faridabad. Faridabad – 121 001 (Haryana).

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Kumar Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44A

notice dated 14/11/2023 due for submission by 21/11/2023, the appellant has uploaded online detail on 18/11/2023 to 21/11/2023 in the form of Application under Rule 46A and Revised Grounds of Appeal vide e acknowledgement no:517991741181123, 518063371181123, 518141011181123, 518360601181123, (uploaded on 18/11/202023) 519193821201123 (uploaded on 20/11/2023) and 520462051211123, 520472181211123( Uploaded

Shri Rattan Singh, Panipat vs. ITO, Panipat

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 807/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshrattan Singh, Vs. Ito, S/O. Shri Tek Chand, Ward-2, Panipat Village-Nizampur, Panipat (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aespc4005K Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement /04/2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

facts, in law and circumstances of the case the Learned Commissioner is not justified in disallowing our request to admit additional evidence under rule 46A for agriculture land purchased through Iqrarnama's dated 14/03/2005 for Rs. 1,75,20,000/- at Garhi Multan dt. 14/03/2005 ... considered for deduction under section 54B of Income Tax Act. These igrarnama be admitted as additional evidence under rule 46A of Income Tax Rules." 9.1. Brief facts have been discussed in the para 4.1 to 4.5 above. 9.2. The AR of the appellant requested that additional ground may be admitted

Dushyantsinh Yadvendrasinh Chudasama, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(2), Vadodara

The appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 199/AHD/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarita Nos: 198 & 199/Ahd/2022 Asst. Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Shri Dushyantsinh The Dcit Yadvendrasinh Chudasama Vs Circle-1(2) R.S. No.175/11/2 Vadodara Valavav Salvi Timba Road, Savli, Vadodara -391 774, Gujarat Pan : Acrpc1888M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Kinjal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing: 27/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumarboth The Above Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee As Against Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 25.03.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)-Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Arising Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Relating To The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. Since Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals (Except Change In Figures), These Were Heard Together & The Same Are Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

opportunity. 2. Your Appellant submits that on facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) ought to have admitted Additional Evidences as per rule 46A and decided the Appeal on Merit. It is therefore submitted that relief claimed above be allowed and the order of the Assessing Officer ... evidences, the assessee may file the same before the Ld CIT(A), who will decide about the admissibility of those evidences in accordance with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 198/Ahd/2022

Dushyantsinh Yadvendrasinh Chudasama, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(2), Vadodara

The appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 198/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Meenu Goel, Delhi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

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

ITA 1286/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Meenu Goel, Vs. Acit, 11-A, Anand Lok, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. (Pan : Aanpg9284H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Manas Shankar Ray, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR

Section 69Section 69A

received. However, ld. CIT (A) observed that these were not produced before the AO. He further observed that the affidavits cannot be admitted under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules in the appellate proceedings and accordingly confirmed the action of the AO. 5. Against this order, assessee

The ITO, Ward-1(2)(4), Ahmedabad vs. Shri. Sureshchandra Shantilal Brahmbhatt, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1549/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Shri. Sureshchandra Shantilal Ward-1(2)(4), Ahmedabad, Brahmbhatt, Room No. 220, V. 4 Shreenath Bangalow Part-2 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Matrushree Party Plot, Near Sachin Tower, Vejalpur, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad-380005 Ahmedabad-380051, Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Actpb8904H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Tushar Hemani, Sr. Ar & Sh. Parimalsinh Parmar, Ar Revenue By: Sh. Prasad Rao Waghe Annasaheb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.04.2024

For Appellant: Sh. Tushar Hemani, Sr. AR & Sh. ParimalsinhFor Respondent: Sh. Prasad Rao Waghe Annasaheb, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Income-tax, Bharuch Circle, Bharuch (2017) (Ahmedabad - Trib.) Bench C The AR vehemently argued that there is no additional evidence to be filed under rule 46A as all the relevant material had been kept on the file of AO. The ratio of case laws (supra) relied by AR has been ... these contentions , but the ld. CIT(A) did not call for the remand report from the AO, and thus , there is a breach of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The details/evidences filed for the first time before ld. CIT(A) w.r.t. the additions made u/s 68 w.r.t

Ratnagiri.ITO1@Incometax.Gov.in, Ratnagiri vs. Mangala Hari Ingale, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is Partly Allowed for Statistical Purpose

ITA 1056/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1056/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer-1, Mangala Hari Ingale, Ratnagiri. V G-1604, Empire Square, Near S Auto Cluster Chinchwad East, Pune City, Chinchwad East S.O., Pune – 411019. Pan: Aaipi0141G Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 01/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 02/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 14.08.2023. The Revenue For A.Y.2018-19 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “I. The Ld.Cit(Appeals) Erred In Accepting The Self-Serving Documents Not Corroborated By Evidence & Which Had Not Stood The Test Of Enquiries In Assessment Proceedings. Ii. The Ld.Cit(Appeals) Erred In Not Allowing The Ao To Examine The Additional Evidence Admitted By Him As Per The Provisions U/S Mangala Hari Ingale [R]

Section 112Section 250Section 69

useful for assessment were available with the AO before assessment. Therefore, Exhibit-C, D & E are, in true sense, additional evidences being entertained under Rule 46A of the IT Rule. I also find that these evidences are conclusive in deciding the grounds of appeal and are not referred ... ld.CIT(A) has admitted the additional evidences without giving opportunity to the Assessing 2 Mangala Hari Ingale [R] Officer(AO) which is violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. 3.2 Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules is as under : Production of additional evidence before the 1[Joint

Firefly Energy Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2871/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 2871/Ahd/2016 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Firefly Energy Limited, Income Tax Officer, 14. Pahelgaon Bunglow, Vs. Ward-2(1)(3), Judges Bungalow Road, Ahmedabad. Vastrapura, Ahmedabad. C/O. Mehta Lodha & Co. Chartered Accountants, 105, Sakar-1, Near Gandhi Gram Rly. Station, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aabca6692E

For Appellant: Shri PD Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT. DR

Section 143(2)Section 68

additional evidence filed by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) finally admitted the additional documents filed by the assessee under Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules. However, the Ld. CIT(A) on merit of the case has observed certain fact as reproduced hereunder: 3.13. In view of the aforesaid discussion

Hayward Synthetics P Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 2 (1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, present appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3644/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. K.ShivaramFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule

Section 143(3)Section 250

additional evidences filed by the Appellant after calling for the remand report from the Assessing Officer in compliance with the provisions contained in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. In terms of the aforesaid, Ground No.1, 2.1, and 2.2 raised by the Appellant are allowed for statistical purposes

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Acme Auto Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5648/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma[A.Y. 2008-09] & [A.Y. 2009-10]

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 69C

appeal raising following grounds: “1. The commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts by accepting additional evidences in contravention of rule 46A. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 18,00,000/- on account ... grounds are reproduced below; “1. The commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts by accepting additional evidences in contravention of rule 46A. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 18,00,000/- on account

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Acme Auto Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5647/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma[A.Y. 2008-09] & [A.Y. 2009-10]

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 69C

DCIT 14(1)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan vs. Neelkanth Urban Developers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2408/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(5)

obtained till 31/03/2017. He further submitted that even if, additional evidence was submitted by the Assessee before CIT(A), the provisions contained in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 [for short 'IT Rules'] were not been complied with as no remand report was sought from the Assessing Officer

Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, (OSD) Range-1, Hyderabad vs. Agarwal Industries Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1062/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1061 & 1062/Hyd/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Jt. Cit (Osd) Vs. Agarwal Industries (P) Range-1 Ltd, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aacca0094R (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Smt. K. Haritha, Cit(Dr) & Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/03/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. K. Haritha, CIT(DR) and Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Revenue challenging the order of the learned CIT (A) on the ground of the no adherence to principles of natural justice mentioned in Rule 46A of I.T. Rules. In the absence of any ground- raising violation of principles of natural justice or accepting the evidence at the back

Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, (OSD) Range-1, Hyderabad vs. Agarwal Industries Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1061/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. K. Haritha, CIT(DR) and Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Hoskote Chikkegowda Madegowda, Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Mysuru

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

ITA 19/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CA

Section 115BSection 69A

case. 3. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in refusing to admit the additional evidence tendered by the appellant in accordance with Rule 46A of the IT Rules,1962 without appreciating that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in producing the said additional evidence before the Assessing Officer

Saptarshi Realtors Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 8 (1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3291/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Saptarshi Realtors Private The Income Tax Officer Limited Ward 8(1)(1) Room No.651, 6Th Floor, 5, 40-45 Kamar Mansion, Aaykar Bhavan, Nanabhai Raralkar Marg, Vs. M.K. Road, Paral Village, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm6828M Saptarshi Realtors Private The Income Tax Officer Limited Ward 8(1)(1) Room No.651, 6Th Floor, 5, 40-45 Kamar Mansion, Nanabhai Raralkar Marg, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Paral Village, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Advocate Devendra Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri Advocate Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, SR DR

Section 143Section 250

have deposited towards booking of the flats. For all these above submissions assessee prayed for admission of additional evidence by invoking the provisions of rule 46A of the income tax rules as per letter dated 14/2/2018. In the additional evidence assessee has submitted the confirmation and documentary evidence of unsecured

Mangalkamna Commosale Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 989/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

without allowing the appellant any proper opportunity of being heard. 2. For that the appellant craves leave to produce additional evidences in terms of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 3. For that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is bad in law since

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Asaikani Nadar Kamaraj, Rajapalayam

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 1197/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1197/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & C.O. No. 54/Chny/2023 [In I.T.A. No. 1197/Chny/2023] The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Asaikani Nadar Kamaraj, Income Tax, 7/84, Pound Street, Chokkanathaputhur, Central Circle 2, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District, Madurai. Tamil Nadu 626 121. [Pan:Aaxpk1318E] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit Assessee By : Shri R. Venkataraman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 31.08.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 01.11.2017 Admitting A Total

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkataraman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145Section 68

basis of the Return of Income filed by her being an additional evidence considered by the ld. CIT(A), which is in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and also submitted that a remand report ought to have been called for from the Assessing Officer ... Assessing Officer. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the ld. CIT(A) has not violated the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 13.2 Coming to the sum of ₹.2,94,63,363/-, it is noticed that the assessee has duly offered

Eye Bank Coordination and Research Centre, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exem Ward 1(2), Mumbai

ITA 3660/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule

Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

order is bad in law. 2) The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not considering the appellant's application under Rule 46A along with the Additional Evidences filed on the 2nd June, 2023 while passing the order dated 21st August, 2023. Hence, the order ... without appreciating that the time for compliance of notice dated 8th August, 2023 was 23rd August, 2023; (b) without considering appellant's Application under Rule 46A along with Additional Evidences submitted on 2nd June, 2023 and (c) not considering the appellant's response uploaded on the 20th July,2023 . Hence

Bumi Hiwat (India) P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), New Delhi

ITA 4933/DEL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2004-05 Bumi Hiwat (India) P. Ltd., Vs Dcit, A1/292, Pankha Road, Circle-5(1), Janakpuri, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Aahca4306R Pan: Aabcb5995M

For Appellant: Ms Sashi M. Kapila, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Sunita Verma, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 254Section 274

with the following relevant findings:- “During the course of appellate proceedings, the AR of the appellant vide application dated 17.01.2012 filed an application under Rule 46A. enclosing therewith the following:- • Details of expenditure, project wise • Copy of provisional and revised financial statements and the reasons for difference • Details of rent