← 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

Dreamtech Constructions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-7(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 91/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 143(3)Section 68

made in respect of share application/premium money and the unsecured loans. The Ld. CIT(A) has called for Remand Report as per Provisions of Rule 46A of the Rules. The A.O. examined the documents produced by the Assessee and filed the Remand Report supporting the additions ... documents are filed by the assessee as additional evidence, the Remand Report has been called from the A.O. as per the provision of Rule 46A of the Rules. The details of the documents produced by the assessee before the CIT(A) are as under:- Sl. name Addition Nature

Dreamtech Constructions Pvt Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 90/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 143(3)Section 68

made in respect of share application/premium money and the unsecured loans. The Ld. CIT(A) has called for Remand Report as per Provisions of Rule 46A of the Rules. The A.O. examined the documents produced by the Assessee and filed the Remand Report supporting the additions ... documents are filed by the assessee as additional evidence, the Remand Report has been called from the A.O. as per the provision of Rule 46A of the Rules. The details of the documents produced by the assessee before the CIT(A) are as under:- Sl. name Addition Nature

Jatin Khanna, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 58(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3111/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya[Assessment Year: 2017-18] Jatin Khanna, Asst. Commissioner Of Income 10/202, Block-10, Tax, Circle-58(1), Geeta Colony, Vs New Delhi-110002 Delhi-110031 Pan-Bgpk9919G Assessee Revenue

Section 183Section 69A

facts of the case is not justified in law and facts and circumstances of the case in not admitting the additional evidence filed under rule 46A during the course of appellant proceedings which was very vital evidence to decide the appeal on the merits of the case. 2. That

ITO Ward 1 and Tps Vijayapur, Air Station vs. Nanda Gopinathsa Malji, Bhavasar Nagar

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

ITA 822/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Shri Narendra Kumar Chodhryassessment Year : 2019-20 Ito, Vs. Shri. Nanda Gopinathsa Malji, Ward – 1 & Tps, Bhavasa Nagar, Near Darga Cross, Vijayapur. Bijapur – 586 103, Karnataka. Pan : Ahspm 0163 B Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250

land. 5. Against this Revenue is in appeal before us. Assessee produced new documents. The NFAC admitted that it is in violation of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Hence, it was prayed that the issue may be remitted to the file

M/S. Lifeline Medicare Hospitals Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Mumbai

In the result ground number 3 of the appeal is dismissed

ITA 74/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Income Tax Officer Vs. M/S Next Avenue Ventures Ward- 12(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai-400020 (Earlier Known As Kbj Ventures Pvt. Ltd.) 3Rd Floor, Raheja Chambers, Link Road Main Avenue, Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400 054 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagck8343R

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri S Srinivasu, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 68

circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in admitting the additional evidence furnished by the assessee under rule 46A, without appreciating the fact that none of the exception mentioned in rule 46A(1) is satisfied." 2. On the facts and in the circumstance ... additional evidence stating that assessee was given enough opportunities [ para 2 of Remand Report] However, the learned CIT (A) applying the provisions of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, admitted the evidence. 014. The learned Assessing Officer also commented on the merits of the additions by that remand report

ITO 12(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Next Avenue Ventures Private Limited(Earlier Known As Kbj Ventures Private Limited), Mumbai

In the result ground number 3 of the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2420/MUM/2023[A.Y. 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Income Tax Officer Vs. M/S Next Avenue Ventures Ward- 12(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai-400020 (Earlier Known As Kbj Ventures Pvt. Ltd.) 3Rd Floor, Raheja Chambers, Link Road Main Avenue, Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400 054 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagck8343R

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri S Srinivasu, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 68

circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in admitting the additional evidence furnished by the assessee under rule 46A, without appreciating the fact that none of the exception mentioned in rule 46A(1) is satisfied." 2. On the facts and in the circumstance ... additional evidence stating that assessee was given enough opportunities [ para 2 of Remand Report] However, the learned CIT (A) applying the provisions of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, admitted the evidence. 014. The learned Assessing Officer also commented on the merits of the additions by that remand report

ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Express Tradelink Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 43/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 43/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Ward -5(1), M/S. Express Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Vs 64, Bentinck Street 3Rd Floor Kolkata - 700001 [Pan: Aacce0887C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate & Shri Asim Panda, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata – 7, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 23/09/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 36 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Revenue. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record Explaining The Reasons. On Perusing The Same, We Are Convinced That The Revenue Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing This Appeal In Time. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate and ShriFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 250Section 68

absence of verification, Ld. CIT(A) should have remanded the matter to A.O. for fresh verification. Thus, he has violated the provisions of Rule 46A of the I, T. Rules 8. That on the facts, the appellant craves to add, alter, amend, delete or substitute any of the grounds and/or

Mukta Ganpat Karnale, Mumbai vs. DCIT 22 (1), Mumbai

ITA 2812/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am Ι.Τ.Α. No. 2812/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Mukta Ganpat Karnale A-701, Deepjyot Chs Ltd., Opp. Orbit Tower, S.L. Matkar Marg, Elphiston Road, Mumbai- 400025 Pan: Ajlpk3849B Appellant) Appellant/Assessee By Revenue/Respondent By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-22(1), Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Respondent) Mr. Mahendra Pasthe, Ca Shri Mahita Nair, Sr. Dr 25.01.2024 02.02.2024 Order Per Padmavathy S, Am: This Appeal Is Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals, / National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short 'The Cit(A)'] Dated 20.06.2023 For

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 270Section 46ASection 48

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM Ι

Andhra Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 620/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.618 To 620/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2017-18) Andhra Pradesh Industrial Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Development Corporation Circle 1(1) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7395Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 144Section 170

consequences as contemplated under the I.T. Act. 8. Although the assessee in the appellate proceedings filed an application for admission of additional evidences under rule 46A of the Act, however, the learned CIT (A) NFAC brushed aside the documents filed by the assessee on the pretext that once the assessee

Andhra Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 619/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.618 To 620/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2017-18) Andhra Pradesh Industrial Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Development Corporation Circle 1(1) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7395Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 144Section 170

consequences as contemplated under the I.T. Act. 8. Although the assessee in the appellate proceedings filed an application for admission of additional evidences under rule 46A of the Act, however, the learned CIT (A) NFAC brushed aside the documents filed by the assessee on the pretext that once the assessee

Andhra Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 618/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.618 To 620/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2017-18) Andhra Pradesh Industrial Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Development Corporation Circle 1(1) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7395Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 144Section 170

consequences as contemplated under the I.T. Act. 8. Although the assessee in the appellate proceedings filed an application for admission of additional evidences under rule 46A of the Act, however, the learned CIT (A) NFAC brushed aside the documents filed by the assessee on the pretext that once the assessee

Income Tax Officer, Ward-25(1), Kolkata vs. Santa Sarkar, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2102/KOL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Santa Sarkar Income Tax Officer, Ward-25(2) Nandan Colony Rajpurrakhal Aaykar Bhavan Dakshin,2, Ghosh Road, Rajpur Battala, Gariahat Road(S), Kolkata- Vs. South-24 Paraganas, Kolkata- 700068, West Bengal 700049, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Awtps2083A Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.N. Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 69ASection 69a

taking into account additional evidences from the appellant without allowing reasonable opportunity to the Assessing Officer as per provisions laid down in Rule 46A of the IT Rule, 1962. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition made ... taking into account the additional evidences from the assessee without allowing reasonable opportunity to the AO as per provisions of Rules 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962. 04. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed its return of income on 07.11.2022, declaring total income

Rakesh Kumar Mathur, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(4) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 671/JPR/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jan 2024AY 2009-2010

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl CIT-DR
Section 148Section 69A

WARD 4(4), JAIPUR 2. (a) The ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not deciding the application under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidence and affidavit. (b) The ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deciding the case without considering the rejoinder

Yatish Kumar Kempanna, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward-6(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1085/BANG/2023[AY 2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Yatish Kumar Kempanna, The Income Tax No. 41, Shanti Nivas, Officer, 8Th Cross, Agrahara, Ward – 6(2)(1), Dasarahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 079. Vs. Pan: Bdzpk4431J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Chowdary, CA
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 56Section 69A

will of his father. v) The assessee has not been able to establish that its case falls under one of the clauses of Rule 46A for the purpose of admission of additional evidence. Page 4 of 7 Therefore, the source of cash deposited of Rs.18,85,000/- the bank accounts

Pushpa Devi Bajaj, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-32, Delhi

In the result, Appeal in ITA Nos

ITA 2600/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.2593/Del/2022, A.Y.2015-16)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

from undisclosed sources. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that during the first appellate proceedings, while admitting the additional documents/evidence filed by the assessee under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, called for Remand Report from the A.O. and the A.O. specifically Page 3 of 10 ITA No.2593 ... satisfaction of the AO, therefore, the AO made addition u/s 68 of the Act. Before Learned CIT(A), assessee filed an additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules and remand report was called from the AO wherein the AO after verification and examination of additional evidence

Pramod Kumar Bajaj, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle -32, Delhi

In the result, Appeal in ITA Nos

ITA 2597/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.2593/Del/2022, A.Y.2015-16)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

from undisclosed sources. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that during the first appellate proceedings, while admitting the additional documents/evidence filed by the assessee under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, called for Remand Report from the A.O. and the A.O. specifically Page 3 of 10 ITA No.2593 ... satisfaction of the AO, therefore, the AO made addition u/s 68 of the Act. Before Learned CIT(A), assessee filed an additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules and remand report was called from the AO wherein the AO after verification and examination of additional evidence

Poonam Bajaj, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-32, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal in ITA Nos

ITA 2593/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.2593/Del/2022, A.Y.2015-16)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

from undisclosed sources. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that during the first appellate proceedings, while admitting the additional documents/evidence filed by the assessee under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, called for Remand Report from the A.O. and the A.O. specifically Page 3 of 10 ITA No.2593 ... satisfaction of the AO, therefore, the AO made addition u/s 68 of the Act. Before Learned CIT(A), assessee filed an additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules and remand report was called from the AO wherein the AO after verification and examination of additional evidence

Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Thane vs. Raj Maitry & Eskon Developer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2117/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalito Ward 4(1), R. No. 3, A Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Wagle, Industrial Estate, Thane Thane (W)-400 064 ...... Appellant Vs. M/S Raj Maitry & Eskon Developer Viva Maitry Height, Opp. Cosmos, Legend, Sector-3, Viva Hdl Scheme, Virar (W)-401303 Pan – Aapfr9847R ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Yashwant Gupta, Ld. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 46A(3)Section 68

justified in admitting the additional evidences adduced by the assessee before him without giving an opportunity of examination to the AO as provided in Rule 46A (3) of the I.T. Rules, 1962. Here it is also pertinent to examine whether allegation of not providing opportunity ... most of the documents were available before the AO and practically AO may have grievance that due procedure was not followed as prescribed under Rule 46A (3) of the Rules, but same was not required as the powers of Ld. CIT (A) was coterminous with that of AO, and what

DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S Hill Max Export, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 742/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 742/Chny/2023 & Co No.: 39/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Hill Max Export, Tax, V. No. 149/1, Central Circle 2(1), Pollachi Main Road, Room No. B3, Ground Floor, Kattampatti, Investigation Building, Jakkarpalayam-Vaipollachi, Chennai – 34. Coimbatore – 642 202. [Pan:Aahfh-2574-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. V. Nanda Kumar, Cit Respondent/Cross Objector By : Shri. M. V. Prasad, Fca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.12.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri. V. Nanda Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 69B

from bank and machinery creditors. 2.3 The Ld.CIT(A) erred in failing to give opportunity to the assessing officer by calling remand report under Rule 46A. Hence, the assessing officer had lost his opportunity to examine the source for capital contribution of partners and valuation of machineries purchased ... admitting certain additional evidences filed by the assessee without giving an opportunity to the Assessing Officer by calling remand report in violation of Rule 46A of I.T. Rules, 1962. 8. The ld. DR further submitted that, the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the proceedings initiated u/s. 153C

Subhash Chander Sehgal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19 (1) & (2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7426/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3814/Del/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 बनाम Dcit Subhash Chander Sehgal, Circle 19(1) Vs. Block A-3, Lsc, Janakpuri, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aatps8259C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 80ISection 8Q

erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,86,000/- without following the mandatory procedure under Rule 46A referring the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision. 4. i. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred