← All Phrases

“rule 46A”

AppealsRule 46ARule 46A2,967 judgments

The decision most relied on for rule 46A is CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (299 ITR 268), cited in 426 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on rule 46A

CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd.
299 ITR 268 · 2008 · High Court
426
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot add share capital or share premium amounts if the assessee provides the identity and creditworthiness of the subscriber and establishes the genuineness of the transaction. The court may admit additional evidence under Rule 46A, such as the PAN identity of the creditor.

CIT v. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P.) Ltd.
56 Taxmann.com 286 · 2015 · High Court
196
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has an independent statutory obligation to conduct proper inquiries and verify facts, especially when the Assessing Officer has failed to do so. The CIT(A) must ensure effective inquiry is carried out before deleting additions or accepting additional evidence.

Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT
231 ITR 1 · 1998 · High Court
186
citing judgments

The first appellate authority must admit additional evidence if it is necessary for determining the true state of affairs and preventing undue hardship or a failure of justice, even without a specific request and particularly when the case falls under Rule 46A(1)(c).

CIT v. Manish Build Well (P) Ltd.
16 Taxmann.com 27 · 2011 · High Court
120
citing judgments

The CIT(A) must strictly comply with Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules for admitting additional evidence, ensuring all prescribed conditions exist, reasons are recorded, and reasonable opportunity is provided to the Assessing Officer.

CIT v. Nikunj Eximp
216 Taxmann.com 171 · 2013 · High Court
103
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer must consider additional evidence produced before the CIT(A) under Rule 46A and cannot reject it without proper appreciation of the facts, especially when the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing it earlier.

CIT v. Virgin Securities & Credits (P) Ltd.
332 ITR 396 · 2011 · High Court
85
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) must admit additional evidence if it is crucial for the proper disposal of the appeal, ensuring substantial justice to the appellant.

CIT v. Manish Buildwell (P) Ltd.
245 CTR 397 · 2011 · High Court
58
citing judgments

The production of fresh evidence at the appellate stage before the Commissioner (Appeals) is strictly governed by the conditions and procedures laid down in Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules.

CIT v. Ranjit Kumar Choudhury
288 ITR 179 · 2007 · High Court
55
citing judgments

The appellate authority must follow Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules when admitting additional evidence, which includes recording reasons for admission and providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to verify or refute the evidence. Failure to do so violates principles of natural justice.

Judgments citing rule 46A

DCIT International Taxation Circle, Gurugram vs. Gurpreetkaurpanesar, Gurugram

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 672/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BE (Vice President), SHRI M.BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 69

facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in accepting the additional evidences submitted by the assessee without considering Rule 46A of the Income tax Rules, 1962? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that ... were indeed already furnished by the assessee before the assessment proceedings itself. We find that hence there is absolutely no violation of provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules as alleged by the revenue in its grounds. In fact the revenue was not able to bring on record

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle-1), Raipur vs. Shri Gurpreet Singh Bhatia, Rajnandgaon

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue in IT(SS)A 01/RPR/2022, stands dismissed

ITA 17/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./It(Ss)A 01/Rpr/2022 Cross Objection No. 02/Rpr/2023 (Arising Out Of It(Ss)A No. 01/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Years:2018-19) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax V M/S Merigold Impex, (Central Circle-I), S 35/75, Punjabi Colony, Katora Talab, Raipur, (C.G.) Raipur, (C.G.) Pan: Aasfm6747N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita 17/Rpr/2022 Cross Objection No. 03/Rpr/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita 17/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Years:2018-19) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax V Shri Gurpreet Singh Bhatia, (Central Circle-I), S 1/2/1, Old Bus Stand Road, Raipur, (C.G.) Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) Pan: Aaspb5363R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Praveen Jain, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 07-09-2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27-10-2023

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

accepting the plea of assesse about source of money received from M/s Plutus Ventures in complete disregard to conditions prescribed under provision of rule 46A(1). Since, the conditions prescribed under this rule are not fulfilled, the CIT(A) erred in accepting additional evidence. 7. Whether on the facts ... providing reasonable opportunity of being 3 IT(SS)A 01/RPR/2022,CO 02/RPR/2023 ITA17/RPR/2022, CO 03/RPR/2023 heard to the AO as provided under rule 46A(3) of IT rules 1964 to examine and rebut the claim of assessee lodged before CIT(A) for the first time. 8. Whether on the facts

Central Engineering Works, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal, Delhi

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

ITA 2083/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2082 & 2083/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11)

For Appellant: TejasSodhaFor Respondent: Ajeya Kumar Ojha
Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69C

20th March, 2023 of the same date as that of the submission. 2.2. The appellant had requested for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1961. Submissions of additional evidences were also made on 20th opted for The said submissions were made by the appellant ... appellate proceedings before us the ld. Counsel filed paper book comprising copies of document submitted before the ld. CIT(A) as additional evidences under Rule 46A vide letter dated 20.03.2023. The ld. Counsel also referred page no. 67 of the paper book showing the e-acknowledgement no. 987105751 dated

Central Engineering Works, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appel Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 2082/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2082 & 2083/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11)

For Appellant: TejasSodhaFor Respondent: Ajeya Kumar Ojha
Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69C

20th March, 2023 of the same date as that of the submission. 2.2. The appellant had requested for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1961. Submissions of additional evidences were also made on 20th opted for The said submissions were made by the appellant ... appellate proceedings before us the ld. Counsel filed paper book comprising copies of document submitted before the ld. CIT(A) as additional evidences under Rule 46A vide letter dated 20.03.2023. The ld. Counsel also referred page no. 67 of the paper book showing the e-acknowledgement no. 987105751 dated

Sarika Gandhi, Sagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Sagar

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

ITA 84/JAB/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sarika Gandhi, Pr. Cit Jabalpur, Ward-8 Banda Jakir Husain Aayakar Bhawan Napier Town Vs. Ward Banda Belai, Madhya Jabalpur M.P. 470335. Pradesh-470335. Pan No. Amppg 5507 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. G.N. Purohit, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Saad Kidwai, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 69A

rejected the appeal the appeal for the reason for no application reason for no application under Rule 46A of the Income Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (in short ‘the Rules’) for admitting additional evidence was 1962 (in short ‘the Rules’) for admitting additional evidence ... assessee submitted that the Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee is willing to file application under Rule 46A of the Rules, assessee is willing to file application under Rule 46A of the Rules, assessee is willing to file application under Rule 46A

Phool Chand, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 513/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 54

facts of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the deduction claimed by the appellant by submitting documents as additional evidences under rules 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, are not acceptable. Hence, the AO's findings in the assessment order dated 06/12/2016 stand affirmed. Ground ... declared by the assessee. 3. During the appellate proceedings assessee filed application dt. 26.11.2018 (PB 7-8) for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of IT Rules to claim that he be allowed deduction u/s 54 of Rs.12,32,000/- for investment made on 22.10.2008 in purchase of house

ITO-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Update Marketings Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2232/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2016-17 V. The Ito-4(3)(1), M/S.Update Marketings Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. 404, Chartered House, Dr.C H Street, Marine Line, Mumbai-400 002. [Pan: Aaacu 0629 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By : Shri Vithal Machindra Bhosale, Sr.Dr Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2023

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vithal Machindra Bhosale, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 148

During the course of appellate proceedings, in view of the powers of the undersigned as per section 250(4) of the Act read with rule 46A(4) of the IT Rules, the appellant was directed to furnish various documents and details. In compliance, the appellant had submitted the following

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Patna vs. M/S Contessa Commercial Co. Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 72/PAT/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

grievance is that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,19,20,000/- by entertaining additional evidence in violation to Rule 46A of the Income Tax Act. The addition was made by the ld. Assessing Officer with the aid of section 68 on account of unexplained ... Contessa Commercial Co. Pvt. Limited along with evidences, which has been entertained by the ld. CIT(Appeals) without following true procedure contemplated in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Act. The ld. Sr. D.R. thereafter appraised us the true meaning and scope of Rule 46A. For the facility of reference

Shark Packaging (India) Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-23(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed only on ground no

ITA 2163/DEL/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 46ASection 68Section 69C

learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the application made by the assessee submitting additional evidences under rule 46A of the income tax rules, 1962. 6. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts ... that the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition by rejecting the detailed explanation and rejecting prayer of admission of additional evidence placed under rule 46A of I.T Rules 1962 whereas the assessee had sufficient cause for which the said evidence was not placed before the Assessing Officer

Shark Packaging (India) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 23(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed only on ground no

ITA 8310/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 46ASection 68Section 69C

learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the application made by the assessee submitting additional evidences under rule 46A of the income tax rules, 1962. 6. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts ... that the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition by rejecting the detailed explanation and rejecting prayer of admission of additional evidence placed under rule 46A of I.T Rules 1962 whereas the assessee had sufficient cause for which the said evidence was not placed before the Assessing Officer

Shark Packaging (India) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 23(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed only on ground no

ITA 8309/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 46ASection 68Section 69C

learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the application made by the assessee submitting additional evidences under rule 46A of the income tax rules, 1962. 6. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts ... that the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition by rejecting the detailed explanation and rejecting prayer of admission of additional evidence placed under rule 46A of I.T Rules 1962 whereas the assessee had sufficient cause for which the said evidence was not placed before the Assessing Officer

Habitat Housing Finance Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1779/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 23/12/2016, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) dated 23/12/2016, the assessee preferred the present appeal on the grounds mentioned above.

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

year was forwarded and the undersigned was requested to go through the submission of the assessee and send the requisite remand report. As per Rule 46A of the income Tax Rules, 1962:- The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), any evidence other than

Lalchand Ramnani, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-3(3), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 288/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 288/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Lalchand Ramnani New Cloth Market, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Acnpr3983J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Apart from that, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that though the assessee had filed an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, the CIT(Appeals) did not take any cognizance of the same while disposing off the appeal ... drew my attention to the letter dated 05.06.2018 that the assessee had filed with the CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur, under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Also, it was submitted by the Ld. A.R that the 7 Lalchand Ramnani Vs. ITO-3(1), Raipur CIT(Appeals) had grossly

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vikas Diamond Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4129/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2008-09 The Acit, Central Circle-23, New Delhi M/S. Vikas Chain Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2608/3, 1St Floor, Bank Street, Vs. Beedonpura Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan Aaccv 3351 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Acit, Central Circle-23, New Delhi M/S. Vikas Diamond Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2608/3, 1St Floor, Bank Street, Vs. Beedonpura Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan Aaccv 0491 N (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Dr. Rakesh Gupta Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue For : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of Ld. Cit-Xxxiii, New Delhi Both Dated 24.02.2014 For Ay 2008-09. Since Ld. Representatives Of Both The Sides Submitted That Regarding Ground No. 1 To 3 Of Revenue The Facts Are Similar & Identical Therefore Both The Appeals Are Being Adjudicated By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta

evidence which resulted into addition u/s. 68 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition without complying with the procedure envisaged in Rule 46A of the I.T Rules 1962 and ignoring the mandate of sec 68 of the Act. It is not sufficient to verify the documentary evidence ... have no hesitation to hold that the findings of ld. CIT(A) are not only perverse but against the mandate of law particularly Rule 46A of the I.T Rules 1962 and thus the same are set aside. The issue is restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for afresh

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vikas Chain Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4128/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2008-09 The Acit, Central Circle-23, New Delhi M/S. Vikas Chain Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2608/3, 1St Floor, Bank Street, Vs. Beedonpura Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan Aaccv 3351 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Acit, Central Circle-23, New Delhi M/S. Vikas Diamond Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2608/3, 1St Floor, Bank Street, Vs. Beedonpura Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan Aaccv 0491 N (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Dr. Rakesh Gupta Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue For : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of Ld. Cit-Xxxiii, New Delhi Both Dated 24.02.2014 For Ay 2008-09. Since Ld. Representatives Of Both The Sides Submitted That Regarding Ground No. 1 To 3 Of Revenue The Facts Are Similar & Identical Therefore Both The Appeals Are Being Adjudicated By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta

evidence which resulted into addition u/s. 68 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition without complying with the procedure envisaged in Rule 46A of the I.T Rules 1962 and ignoring the mandate of sec 68 of the Act. It is not sufficient to verify the documentary evidence ... have no hesitation to hold that the findings of ld. CIT(A) are not only perverse but against the mandate of law particularly Rule 46A of the I.T Rules 1962 and thus the same are set aside. The issue is restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for afresh

Aameen Belim, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Jodhpur

In the result, the ground no

ITA 571/JODH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 124(3)(b)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 292BSection 69

Rs.3,15,207/-. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee made the application for acceptance of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 before the ld. CIT(A). Without considering the same the ld. CIT(A) passed the order and allowed

Yogesh Gunvantlal Ronvelia, Valsad vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 516/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.516/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Shri Yogesh Gunvantlal Ronvelia Income Tax Officer, 704-B/Riddhi Siddhi Apartment, [International Taxation], Surat, Vs. Halar Road, Valsad-396001 107 Anavil Business Centre, Adajan Hajira Road, Surat- 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amvpr 5835 P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 12/10/2023 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad [In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 30.05.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 20.12.2018. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. Ld. Cit[A], Has Erred In Law & On Facts To Upheld A.O’S Reopening Of Assessee’S Assessment U/S 147 & Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of I.T Act. 2. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts To Uphold Addition Of Rs.9,00,000/- Out Of A.O’S Addition Of Rs.11,00,000/- Made On Account Of Cash Deposit In Assessee’S Bank Account With Central Bank Of India Ignoring The Evidences & Facts That Assessee’S Father Has Withdrawn Cash From The Said Bank Account Prior To Make Deposit.”

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 69

considered the submission of the assessee and in the interest of justice, fresh evidences filed by the assessee were admitted under Rule 46A of the Rules. The cash book filed by the assessee detailing the withdrawals and balances is self-serving in nature, as it only tries to give credence

M/S. Pragati Milk Product Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for respective assessment years under consideration are allowed

ITA 145/CTK/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.143 To 145/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 To 2014-2015) M/S Pragati Milk Products(P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.71/A/1, New Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack-754021 Pan No. :Aaecp 6353 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.10.2018, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0487/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Facts In All The Cases Are Identical. It Was The Submission That There Was Search In The Premises Of The Assessee. As A Consequence Of Search, Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.153A Of The Act. In The Assessment U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Had Been Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib(11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Said Assessment Order Was The Subject Matter Of Rectification Application On Multiple Occasions & In The Third Round Of Rectification Application The Ao Has Withdrawn The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib (11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The 2

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 80I

filed any reply. Ld. AO, therefore, passed exparte order. In the appellate order the Ld. CIT(A) observed that without filing any application under rule 46A the assessee furnished undated copies of letters addressed to ACIT-C2, Ghaziabad as part of submission. Before us the plea taken by the assessee

M/S. Pragati Milk Product Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for respective assessment years under consideration are allowed

ITA 144/CTK/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.143 To 145/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 To 2014-2015) M/S Pragati Milk Products(P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.71/A/1, New Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack-754021 Pan No. :Aaecp 6353 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.10.2018, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0487/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Facts In All The Cases Are Identical. It Was The Submission That There Was Search In The Premises Of The Assessee. As A Consequence Of Search, Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.153A Of The Act. In The Assessment U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Had Been Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib(11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Said Assessment Order Was The Subject Matter Of Rectification Application On Multiple Occasions & In The Third Round Of Rectification Application The Ao Has Withdrawn The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib (11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The 2

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 80I

filed any reply. Ld. AO, therefore, passed exparte order. In the appellate order the Ld. CIT(A) observed that without filing any application under rule 46A the assessee furnished undated copies of letters addressed to ACIT-C2, Ghaziabad as part of submission. Before us the plea taken by the assessee

M/S. Pragati Milk Product Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for respective assessment years under consideration are allowed

ITA 143/CTK/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.143 To 145/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 To 2014-2015) M/S Pragati Milk Products(P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.71/A/1, New Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack-754021 Pan No. :Aaecp 6353 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.10.2018, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0487/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Facts In All The Cases Are Identical. It Was The Submission That There Was Search In The Premises Of The Assessee. As A Consequence Of Search, Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.153A Of The Act. In The Assessment U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Had Been Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib(11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Said Assessment Order Was The Subject Matter Of Rectification Application On Multiple Occasions & In The Third Round Of Rectification Application The Ao Has Withdrawn The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib (11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The 2

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 80I

filed any reply. Ld. AO, therefore, passed exparte order. In the appellate order the Ld. CIT(A) observed that without filing any application under rule 46A the assessee furnished undated copies of letters addressed to ACIT-C2, Ghaziabad as part of submission. Before us the plea taken by the assessee