← 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

Rajiv Amritlal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 280/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 153A

kindly be deleted. 6. Your appellant also reserves its right to submit details in connection with the aforesaid additions/disallowances as fresh evidence as per Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 at the time of hearing of this appeal. 7. Your appellant craves liberty to add, to alter, to modify ... kindly be deleted. 6. Your appellant also reserves its right to submit details in connection with the aforesaid additions/disallowances as fresh evidence as per Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 at the time of hearing of this appeal. 7.1. As observed in the preceding paragraphs, impugned additions were made

Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhawantarabai Park Kolhapur vs. Sadanand Shankarrao Korgaonkar, Laxmipuri Kolhapur

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

ITA 1274/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteito, Ward-1(1), Kolhapur. Vs Sadanand Shankarrao Korgaonkar, 1356 C Ward, Laxmipuri, Kolhapur (Mh) Pan : Aawpk 6188 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte, Ca Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/03/2024 Order Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Emanates From The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 13.09.2023 For A.Y.2018-19 As Per The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:- “I. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 8,17,55,763/- Of Unexplained Cash Deposits. Ii. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Following The Procedure Laid Down Under Rule 46A As He Has Accepted The Additional Evidences Without Giving The Opportunity To The Ao. Iii. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Holding That The Cash Deposits In The Account Of Firm May Be Held To Be Partner’S Cash. Firm & Its Partners Are Integral Part. Iv. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend Or Alter Any Ground/Grounds, Which May Be Necessary.”

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. Shingte, CAFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, DR

unexplained cash deposits. ii. The CIT(A) has erred in not following the procedure laid down under Rule 46A as he has accepted the additional evidences without giving the opportunity to the AO. iii. The CIT(A) has erred in not holding that the cash deposits in the account ... contended that AO was not given any opportunity for verification of these evidences which were filed for the first time before the NFAC. That, Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (IT Rules) provides any evidence if it is to be accepted for the first time

Pegasystems Worldwide India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 2390/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadwaj, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Meghnath Chowhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

material stating that no petition to receive the additional evidence accompanied the vouchers. 9. It is the submission on behalf of the assessee that Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”) stipulates that the assessee shall not be entitled to produce before the Commissioner(Appeals) any evidence

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Tirupati vs. Devapatla Subhadramma, Tirupati

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

ITA 581/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.581/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt. Devapatla Ward – 1 (1) Subhadramma Tirupati Tirupati Pan:Ayqps6231H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 143(2)Section 144

copies of the purchase as well as sale documents are submitting herewith and requested that the same may be considered as additional evidence under Rule 46A of the IT Rules 1962. In view of the above a remand report was called for from the AO on 05.07.2023 along with reminders ... being unexplained cash deposits in the bank account. We find the assessee before the learned CIT (A), submitted a petition under Rule 46A of the I.T. Page 9 of 11 ITA 581 of 2023 Devapatla Subhadramma Rules enclosing certain additional evidences in respect of the cash deposits made in Karnataka

Atulbhai Amritlal Mehta, Ahmedabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 3(2) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 191/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh J Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Namita Khurana, Sr. D.R
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 68

facts in confirming the High Pitched Order of the Id. A.O. without taking into account the Additional Evidences placed on record as per the Rule 46A. The CIT Appeal has failed to do justice to the duty casted upon him and erred in passing the Atulbhai Amritlal Mehta vs. DCIT

ACIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 798/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, D.R
Section 80I

details filed were additional evidences which were never filed before the AQ in the assessment proceedings and therefore covered by the provisions of Rule 46A? 14(b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of loss ... Rs.3,55,42,101/- on account of supply of water by admitting the details which were additional evidence without calling for report Under Rule 46A of the I.T.Rules, 1962 from the AO and without appreciating that these details were never filed before the AO in the assessment proceedings, thus violating

Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 522/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, D.R
Section 80I

details filed were additional evidences which were never filed before the AQ in the assessment proceedings and therefore covered by the provisions of Rule 46A? 14(b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of loss ... Rs.3,55,42,101/- on account of supply of water by admitting the details which were additional evidence without calling for report Under Rule 46A of the I.T.Rules, 1962 from the AO and without appreciating that these details were never filed before the AO in the assessment proceedings, thus violating

Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 521/MUM/2019[2088-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2088-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, D.R
Section 80I

details filed were additional evidences which were never filed before the AQ in the assessment proceedings and therefore covered by the provisions of Rule 46A? 14(b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of loss ... Rs.3,55,42,101/- on account of supply of water by admitting the details which were additional evidence without calling for report Under Rule 46A of the I.T.Rules, 1962 from the AO and without appreciating that these details were never filed before the AO in the assessment proceedings, thus violating

ACIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7498/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 80I

details filed were additional evidences which were never filed before the AQ in the assessment proceedings and therefore covered by the provisions of Rule 46A? 14(b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of loss ... Rs.3,55,42,101/- on account of supply of water by admitting the details which were additional evidence without calling for report Under Rule 46A of the I.T.Rules, 1962 from the AO and without appreciating that these details were never filed before the AO in the assessment proceedings, thus violating

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Airport Developement Co. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7258/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 80I

details filed were additional evidences which were never filed before the AQ in the assessment proceedings and therefore covered by the provisions of Rule 46A? 14(b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of loss ... Rs.3,55,42,101/- on account of supply of water by admitting the details which were additional evidence without calling for report Under Rule 46A of the I.T.Rules, 1962 from the AO and without appreciating that these details were never filed before the AO in the assessment proceedings, thus violating

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Airport Developement Co. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3704/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, D.R
Section 80I

details filed were additional evidences which were never filed before the AQ in the assessment proceedings and therefore covered by the provisions of Rule 46A? 14(b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of loss ... Rs.3,55,42,101/- on account of supply of water by admitting the details which were additional evidence without calling for report Under Rule 46A of the I.T.Rules, 1962 from the AO and without appreciating that these details were never filed before the AO in the assessment proceedings, thus violating

Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3682/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 80I

details filed were additional evidences which were never filed before the AQ in the assessment proceedings and therefore covered by the provisions of Rule 46A? 14(b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of loss ... Rs.3,55,42,101/- on account of supply of water by admitting the details which were additional evidence without calling for report Under Rule 46A of the I.T.Rules, 1962 from the AO and without appreciating that these details were never filed before the AO in the assessment proceedings, thus violating

Late Krishna Gopal Gupta (Thr. Son and Legal Heir Shri Mahendra Kumar Gupta), Jaipur vs. I.T.O. Ward 2 (1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 2/JPR/2024[A.Y. 2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Mar 2024

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl CIT-DR
Section 148Section 250

observing as under:- 9. Findings & Decision: 91 First of all, I have carefully considered the request of the appellant to admit additional evidences under Rule 46A for the purpose of effective adjudication of appeal. On perusal of assessment order, it is found that in this case, first notice 3 LATE ... residing at Jaipur. The legal heir through the AR of the deceased assessee has therefore requested to admit the same as additional evidence under Rule 46A(1)(c) of the I.T. Rules. It is pertinent to mention that as per section

Unnikrishnan. K, Kunnampally vs. The ITO Ward 2, Tirur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms, and his stay petition dismissed

ITA 955/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmi

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148(1)

audited books of account and break- up of the retail sales before the Ld. CIT(A). Though the Ld. CIT(A) should have followed Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962 and could have asked for the remand repo.rt from the Assessing officer after accepting the additional evidence ... same has not been done by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) has contravened the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 10. Moreover the assessee had submitted the details of retail sales of lottery tickets and on submission of the same

Amit Nagesh Shinde, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Ward-26(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3284/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Us, Reads As Under:-

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69C

credit worthiness and genuineness of the transaction for your reference and records. 8. Assessee had also filed petition for admission of additional evidence under rule 46A (1) to substitute the claim of the loan and its genuineness. Regarding interest, it was submitted that same was interest on bank OD, secured

Jet Lite (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6 (Now CC-1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 839/DEL/2019[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2024AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmajet Lite (India) Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 13, Community Central Circle-6, Centre, Yusuf Sarai, (Now Cc-1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcs4480L

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT DR
Section 156Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the appellant's application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, being evidence to substantiate the Ground of Appeal No. 4 above. 6) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... from of Assessment order/proceedings. 9.7 A verification is required at the time of filing Rol or revised Rol or Form No. 35. 9.8 The Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962 debars acceptance of new evidences, except in cases where at assessment stage either AO refused to accept the same

Ksj Infrastructure Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

ITA 1110/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1110/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Ksj Infrastructure The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax, 2Nd Floor, Grant Lane, Room Central Circle -1(1), No. 218, Kolkata – 700 012. Chennai – 600 0034. [Pan:Aadcc-5913-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Rama Krishnan, Fca & Shri. Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. B. Rama Krishnan, FCA and Shri. Shrenik Chordia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)Section 153CSection 234BSection 68

Sheets as s at 31.03.2010 of the investor Companies stated in the 'Return of Allotments' that was filed through an Additional Evidence Petition under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 by the appellant company. 7. For that the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in confirming the levy

DCIT, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Uttarakhand Sheep and Wool Development Board, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical

ITA 3289/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Admitting Additional Evidence As Regards To

For Appellant: Shri Pavitra Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr.DR
Section 1Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)(b)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 144B

erred in law and facts in deleting addition made by the AO by not granting opportunity as required under Rule 46A of the IT. Rules, 1962 before admitting additional evidence as regards to Page 1 of 8 ITA No.- 3289/Del/2023 Uttarakhand Sheep and Wool Development Board. investment of accumulated income ... that while adjudicating the assessee’s appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has admitted additional evidence without granting any opportunity to the Ld. AO under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 to give his comments/ counter on the same. The Ld. Sr. DR pointed out that in para

DCIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi vs. Pico Deepali Overlays Consortium, Gurugram

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 2161/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Tapas Misra, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144

which was considered by the CIT(A). The relevant finding of the CIT(A) reads as under: “4. Admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A I have gone through the contents of the remand report of the Assessing Officer, rejoinder of the appellant and also the additional evidences filed under ... Rule 46A of the IT Rules 1962. The appellant has submitted that it was unable to participate in the assessment proceedings for reasons beyond its control and did not have any knowledge of the impugned assessment order for a long time. The lead member of the Consortium, Pico Hong Kong

Income Tax Office, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada vs. Harinadh Ananthaneni, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 168/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 168/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sri Harinadh Ananthaneni, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan: Ainpa 3860 B (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 28/Viz/2023 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 168/Viz/2023) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ananthaneni Harinadh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolavenu Village, Ward-2(3), Krishna District. Vijayawada. Pan: Ainpa 3860 B (""यथ"/ Respondent) (Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

Tribunal by raising the following Grounds of Appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting the new / additional evidence ignoring the provisions of Rule 46A(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in taking into account the new / additional evidence, without providing any opportunity ... examine / refute the said additional evidence, ignoring the provisions of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in law and facts of the case, in allowing appeal of the assessee basing on the new / additional evidence admitted during the appellate