“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

M/S. American Express Services India Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 3447/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

This makes the discretion and power of Tribunal under Rule 29 to be quiet wider and majestic than one available to CIT(A) under Rule 46A or even to appellate Civil Courts under Order 41 of Rule 27 of CPC. 10. So here in the case in hand the facts

Niho Construction Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 18(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 4568/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshniho Construction Ltd, Vs. Ito, 22, 1St Floor, Hauz Khas, Ward-18(2), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcn8530G

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeetender Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 40

assessee. These documentary evidences were admittedly filed by the assessee before the ld CIT(A) in the form of additional evidences in terms of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The ld CIT(A) even sought for remand report from the ld AO on these additional evidences

Goldstone Infra, Rajendranagara vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 8 (2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 570/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CA appeared for Sri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan

Section 115Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 69A

furnished the details / explanation of the cash credit appearing in the bank accounts. In this regard, the assessee has also filed an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. However, the ld.CIT(A) had not admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee and had dismissed ... application filed under Rule 46A of the Act. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee and now the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The ld.AR for the assessee has further submitted that ld.CIT(A) should have been admitted the documents and the evidence filed

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Ms Agarwal Foundries Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1063/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Dy.Cit Vs. M/S. M.S Agarwal Circle 16(2) Foundries (P) Ltd, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaics4832K (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr) Assessee By: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, Ca Date Of Hearing: 04/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/01/2024 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.03.2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2012-13. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Company Is Engaged In Manufacture Of Sponge Iron. It Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2012-13 Admitting Income Of Rs.5,730/- & Also Revised Return Of Income Admitting Income Of Rs.9,760/-. Subsequently, The Case Was Converted Into Scrutiny Under Cass & Statutory Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Were Issued & Served On The Assessee To Which Page 1 Of 10

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence in contravention of Rule 46A without giving reasonable opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine the additional evidence. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Rohan Nitin Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 25(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3121/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Ito Ward 25(3)(3) Rohan Nitin Mehta Room No.606,6 Th Floor, 42, Nirmal Bunglow, C-10, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, 10Th Floor, Jai Hind Chs, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Jvpd, Vile Parle, Bandra East, West, Mumbai -400 056 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Amnpm3626M Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Singh (Adv.) Revenue By : Shri Mahita Nair (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing: 02.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair (Sr. DR.)

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 68

natural justice and the same may be quashed. (ii) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Appellant had moved an application under Rule 46A before the Ld. CIT(A)-37, Mumbai and the same was referred to the Ld. A.O. for his comment / remand report. Hence ... migration to National Faceless Appellate Centre, assessee submitted the complete details before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). There was a petition under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidences. Such details are filed on 21st May, 2018. Such additional evidences were admitted

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Circle-1, Unity Building Annex vs. Mymul Raitha Kalyana Trust, Siddarathanagar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 923/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250

Rs.4,34,13,684/- is entitled for exemption u/s 11 of the Act without calling for remand report from the AO in violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules. 16. Facts of the issue are that the assessee received a corpus fund of Rs.4,34,13,684/- and claimed

Anuj Kumar Singh, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward 1(1)(1), Meerut

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1434/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: The A.O, By Ignoring The Facts That The Statutory Notices Were Not Served Upon The Assessee During The Course Of Anuj Kumar Singh Vs. Ito

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

back of A.O./I.T.O for not admitting such evidences is the violation of principle of natural justice and also violation of condition of Rule 46A(3) of the I.T Rules. 3. That, the Ld. CIT (A) has also erred in not admitting the additional evidence which are crucial ... appeal merely on the ground that the additional evidences were not supported by an application u / r 46A of the I.T Rules. In fact, Rule 46A cannot override the principals of natural justice. 4. That, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the grounds no. 3 & 4 of appeals

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir., 2, Surat vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Surat

In the result, ground no.2 raised by the assessee in ITA

ITA 121/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर(खोज-और-ज"ती)अपील सं/It(Ss)A Nos.23 & 24/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Central Circle – 3, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Surat. Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.118/Srt/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Vs. The Acit, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Circle -1(2), Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Srt/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Dcit, Vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Central Circle – 2, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Surat. Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर(खोज-और-ज"ती)अपील सं It(Ss)A Nos.90/Srt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Vs. The Dcit, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Central Circle – 3, Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat. Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68Section 69A

Assessee`s appeal in ITA No.118/SRT/2021), are as follows: (i) Ground No.1: The ld. CIT(A) has erred in admitting additional evidences under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules by holding that sufficient time was not given to the assessee for submitting the relevant details during the course of assessment ... Nos.23, 24/SRT/2021, 90/SRT/2022 & ITA Nos. 118, 121/SRT/2021 Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad (i) Ground No.1: The ld. CIT(A) has erred in admitting additional evidences under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules by holding that sufficient time was not given to the assessee for submitting the relevant details during the course

Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Surat vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir., -1(2), Surat

In the result, ground no.2 raised by the assessee in ITA

ITA 118/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68Section 69A

Ajay Kumar Sharma, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-19(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1998/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. N. K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2016-17 Ajay Kumar Sharma Vs. Ito 84, Mandakini Enclave, Ward- 19 (2) Alaknanda, Delhi-110019 New Delhi Pan No.Aoaps6261D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vp Gupta, Advocate Sh. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Assessee In Person Respondent By Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/12/2023 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.06.2022 By Nfac, Delhi Pertaining To A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Grievance Of The Assessee Read As Under :-

Section 133(6)

fact that the Appellant had resigned from the post of director of the company with effect from 10.04.2015 and rejected the application submitted under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, as described in Point No.11 of the Appellate Order.” 3. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. M/S Surat Life Care Pvt. Ltd., Surat

ITA 160/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.160/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Vs. M/S. Surat Life Care Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3, Unique Hospital, Opp. Kiran Motor, Surat Nr. Sosyo Circle Lane, Surat - 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aarcs8396M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By 14/12/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2023

Section 115BSection 131Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 35ASection 68

capital expenditure details were not furnished before the assessing officer, the details furnished during Appellate Proceedings were in the nature of additional evidence under Rule 46A and hence, were forwarded by ld CIT(A) to the assessing officer for verification and remand report. The assessing officer vide letter dated

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -3(2), Mumbai vs. Viraj Profiles Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above directions

ITA 2164/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleviraj Profiles Pvt Ltd V. Dy. Cit - Central Circle- 3(2) (Formerly Known As Viraj Profiles Limited) Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor 1St Floor, Viraj Towers Air India Building Jn Of Andheri Kurla Road Nariman Point W.E. Highway, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400021 Mumbai- 400093 Pan: Aabcv1740N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - Central Circle- 3(2) V. Viraj Profiles Pvt Ltd (Formerly Known As Viraj Profiles Limited) Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor 1St Floor, Viraj Towers Air India Building, Nariman Jn Of Andheri Kurla Road Point W.E. Highway, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400021 Mumbai- 400093 Pan: Aabcv1740N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Mani Jain Department Represented By : Shri. Ujjawal Kumar Chavan

Section 250Section 37Section 80G

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in admitting the new evidence in the form of DGCEI report under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 without giving opportunity to the assessing officer. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Viraj Profiles Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above directions

ITA 1213/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Section 250Section 37Section 80G

The DCIT, Morbi Circle, Morbi vs. M/S. Clayris Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., Morbi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 287/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 287/Rjt/2018 With Co No. 28/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 D.C.I.T, M/S. Clayris Ceramic Pvt. Ltd., Morbi Circle, Vs. Opp. Soriso Ceramics, Morbi. B.H Fame Ceramics Pvt., 8A-Nh, Morbi.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT. D.R

Section 68

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting additional evidences in violation of rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962 without giving an opportunity to the Assessing Officer. 2.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case

Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2241/AHD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2241/Ahd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Vodafone India Services बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle- Pvt. Ltd. 4(1)(2) Vs. Indiabulls Finance Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Room 1201, 12Th Floor, Tower-1, No.209, Pratyaksh Kar Senapati Bapat Road, Bhavan, Near Elphinstone (West), Polytechnic, Ambawadi, Mumbai-400013. Ahmedabad-380015. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz1849D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Fereshte Sethna (Adv) Revenue By: Letter Dated 11.10.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad Dated 31.08.2018, Arising Out Of The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Dated 05.12.2014 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. In The Several Grounds Raised In The Appeal, The Sole Grievance Of The Appellant Is Against The Action Of The Ao/Ld. Cit(A) In Not Allowing The Depreciation Claimed On Goodwill.

For Appellant: Ms. Fereshte Sethna (Adv)For Respondent: Letter dated 11.10.2023

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(15)(b)Section 92C

noted that, the appellant also filed the following additional evidences in support of the said claim along with a prayer under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter “the Rules”). (a) Valuation report dated 13.03.2008 issued by independent valuer M/s. Dalal & Shah Chartered Accountants (CA). (b) Form

Amrinder Singh Josan, Sri Ganganagar vs. ITO, Ward-3, Sriganganagar

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA 492/Jodh/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 492/JODH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur15 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 48Section 68

file of the ld. CIT(A) for further adjudication de novo and direct to accept the additional evidence of the assessee as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule, 1962. Both the revenue and the counsel of the assessee had not made any objection for remanding back the issue

The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Mumbai vs. Atul Shivdas Ganatra, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 192/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. L. Solanki, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 68

evidence produced by the assessee appellant during the appellate proceedings by holding the same as supporting/clarificatory documents and not additional evidence as per Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules and allowing the assessee’s appeal on the basis of the same, without giving a reasonable opportunity ... produce to any evidence or documents or any witness in rebuttal of such additional evidence produced by the appellant, despite the provisions of Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, 1962. 3. The Revenue craves leave to add/alter/amend and/or substitute any or all of the grounds of appeal

Amrik Singh S/O Sh Lakhbir Singh, Fatehabad vs. ITO Ward-1, Fatehabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 48/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: N o n e

Section 144Section 69

arguments of the AR during the course of appellate proceedings have been considered. During the appellate proceedings, the AR filed an application under Rule 46A along with a cash flow statement and other documents to explain the source of cash deposit. In the remand report submitted

ACIT, Circle- 20(2), New Delhi vs. Qns Facility Management Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7506/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. C.N. Prasadassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit Vs. Qns Facility Management Pvt. Ltd. 6Th Floor, Unitech Circle – 20 (2) New Delhi House, 6, Community Centre, Saket New Delhi Pan No.Aaacu1291Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Rohit Garg, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. D. C. Garg, Ca Date Of Hearing: 13/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13/12/2023 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Preferred Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi Dated 10.09.2018 Pertaining To A.Y.2015- 16. 2. The Grievance Of The Revenue Read As Under :- 1. Whether On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting Disallowance Of Rs. 6,31,26,422/- Ignoring The Fact That The Total Maintenance Fees & Charges Received By The Appellant Irrespective Of Its Nomenclature Constitutes

Section 133Section 144Section 35DSection 37

erred in law in accepting the asssessee submissions/ documents without providing any opportunity to the AO for verification of additional evidences under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. 3. The assessee company is a subsidiary of Unitech Limited. 4. At the very outset the Counsel for the assessee brought

Ramrati, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2(2), Ghaziabad

ITA 3813/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2009-10 Ramrati Vs. Ito W/O Sh. Jaswant Singh, Vill Ward-2 (2) & Post Raispur Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan No.Cmjpr3627M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Sh. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Ms. Tanya, Advocate Ms. Shivani, Advocate Sh. Jaind, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 11/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13/12/2023 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-2, Noida Dated 27.03.2018 Pertaining To A.Y.2009-10. 2. The Grievance Of The Assessee Read As Under :- 1. That The Ld. Cit(A), Erred In Law, On Facts & In Surrounding Circumstances In Partly Allowing The Appeal

Section 147Section 148

support additional evidences were filed copy of the same was provided to the AO by the CIT(A) providing an opportunity as required under rule 46A(iii) of the IT rules. A remand report was received on 26.03.2018. The remand report read as under :- “4.7 The Remand report dt.26.03.2018