← 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

Deen Dayal Sharma, A-135, Govindpura, Kardhani, Kalwar Road, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1), Jaipur

ITA 394/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

satisfactorily explain the source of such deposits before the AO. The appellant is not correct in requesting for admitting additional evidence as per Rule 46A on plea that counsel did not care to attend the proceedings, as appellant and AR are one party to the Department and AR appeared before

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur vs. Orient Paper Mills Prop. M/S Orient Papers &

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 35/JAB/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has justified in admitting fresh evidence in appellate proceeding in violation of rule 46A of 1.T. Rule 1962. 2 | P a g e ITA Nos.34 & 35/Jab/2014 DCIT vs Orient Paper Mills 4. Whether on the fact and in circumstances ... Ground No.3 of the appeal, the Revenue has raised the issue of admitting fresh evidences by the ld CIT(A) in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short “the Rules”). 10.1. We have heard Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties on issue in dispute

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur vs. Orient Paper Mills Prop. M/S Orient Papers &

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 34/JAB/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has justified in admitting fresh evidence in appellate proceeding in violation of rule 46A of 1.T. Rule 1962. 2 | P a g e ITA Nos.34 & 35/Jab/2014 DCIT vs Orient Paper Mills 4. Whether on the fact and in circumstances ... Ground No.3 of the appeal, the Revenue has raised the issue of admitting fresh evidences by the ld CIT(A) in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short “the Rules”). 10.1. We have heard Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties on issue in dispute

M/S. United Phosphorus Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 38, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4695/MUM/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. United Phosphorus Limited, Mumbai (Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd.) Uniphos House, 11-C.D. Marg Opp. Madhu Park Khar (W), Mumbai – 400 052 Pan: Aaacu3440P ...... Appellant Vs. Acit Cc -2 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-38 Mumbai ..... Respondent Acit Cc -2 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-38 Mumbai ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. United Phosphorus Limited, Mumbai (Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd.) Uniphos House, 11-C.D. Marg Opp. Madhu Park Khar (W) Mumbai – 400 052 Pan: Aaacu3440P ...... Respondent (Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd.)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti B Patel / Shri KiritFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

justified in accepting the contention of the assessee with regards to Legal Fees without giving opportunity to the Assessing Officer under Rule 46A(3)". 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income declaring total income at Rs. 9,37,22,420/-. Return ... justified in accepting the contention of the assessee with regards to Legal Fees without giving opportunity to the Assessing Officer under Rule 46A(3).. (Now known as Uniphos Enterprises Ltd.) 58. Ground no. 1 pertains to allowing product registration expenses of Rs. 137,93,917/- and research and development expenses

Dn Builders Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-2(2)(2), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1802/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2009-10 Dn Builders Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito, R-7, Raj Kunj, Rajnagar, Ward-2(2)(2), Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh – 201 002. Pan: Aaccd0379C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Raj Kumar Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2023

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

were deprived off opportunity of being heard. 5. The appellant reserves its right add to amend to alter to submit additional evidence under rule 46A or to take additional grounds and in appeal memo at the time of hearing. 6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances

Bilaspur Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bilaspur

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

ITA 218/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 218/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Bilaspur Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Bf-1, 1St Floor, Rajeev Plaza, Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan : Aaccb4045M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69

further erred in passing the Order without considering the written submission, /Paper Book running into 510 pages, application for fresh evidence under Rule 46A filed on two occasions, Remand Report of Ld. AO and response of Appellant filed to Remand Report as filed before the Ld. CIT (Appeals) during physical ... during the proceedings before the CIT(Appeals) filed “Written submissions” running into 510 pages a/w. an application for admission of certain fresh/additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Also, as therein stated, the CIT(Appeals) had in the course of the appellate proceedings called

The ACIT, 5(1), Indore vs. M/S. Swastik Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Indore

ITA 229/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit 5(1) M/S Swastic Coal Corporation Indore Pvt. Ltd. 21/3 Swastik House, Ratlam Vs. Kothi, Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan:Aabcj3196N Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Vijay Bansal & Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ars Date Of Hearing 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2023

Section 14ASection 68

asking the remand report from the concerned AO in pursuance the additional evidences furnished by the assessee company and not following the provision of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules 1962.” 2. Ground No.1 to 4 are regarding disallowance made by the AO u/s 14A which was deleted

ACIT, Circle- 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bbh Communications India Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 2000/MUM/2023[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2023
For Appellant: Ms. Tejal SarafFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 143(3)

allowing a reasonable opportunity to the AO before taking into account additional evidences in the form of different reconciliation sheet as per rule 46A of I.T. Rules, 1962 without appreciating the fact that in the Assessment Year 2012-13 in the assessee's own case remand report was called ... brief that the contention of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without complying with the requirements of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Whereas, the contention of the Assessee is mismatch of income reflected and Form 26AS and Book of Accounts

Vipin Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 45(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 4681/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI G. S. PANNU (President), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 3Section 68

submitted before the AO, I hold that appellant's case is not covered by any of the clauses specified under Sub-rule 1 of rule 46A of the I. T. Rules, 1962. The additional evidence filed by the appellant during the course of appellate proceedings is therefore not admitted, least

Control Risks India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 6(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3811/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Upvan Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

Appellant with the non-resident group companies, and (2) No Permanent Establishment Certificates were additional evidences and in absence of application under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules"), the same could not be admitted for adjudication of the issues involved. 2.1 Without prejudice, that ... erred in law in not granting an opportunity to the Appellant to furnish the aforesaid additional documents by way of application under Rule 46A of the Rules. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in law in confirming the disallowance made

ITO- 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bkc Abode Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 1587/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Mskavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S Bkc Abode Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer 394-C, Lamington Ward 5(1)(1), Chambers, 570, 5Th Floor, Lamington Road, Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, Grant Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 004 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecb3807D Assessee By : Shri K.P. Devani, Adv. Revenue By : Shri S Srinivasu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2023

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Devani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S Srinivasu, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 68

deleting the addition made on the basis of assessee’s submission but without giving opportunity to the AO as per subrule (3) of rule 46A of IT rules 1962 by calling for remand report. 03. The brief fact of the case shows that assessee is a company, who filed

ITO-10(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Orhan Shipping Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1755/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri S Rifaur Rahman () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Vimal Punmiya, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. K.C. Selvamani, CIT-DR

examine the without providing opportunity to the AO to examine the without providing opportunity to the AO to examine the additional evidences as per Rule 46A(3) of the I. T. Rules? additional evidences as per Rule 46A(3) of the I. T. Rules? additional evidences as per Rule 46A

DCIT Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. J.H Jewellers LLP, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 1537/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 131Section 133A

given any specific comments on the issue in remand report as case does not deserve under the clauses of Rule 46A(1) of Income Tax Rule 1962. Page 2 of 8 DCIT vs. J.H.Jewellers LLP 3 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions ... asked specific comment on the said issue in remand and the action of the CIT(A) does not deserve under Rule 46A(1) of the I. T. Rules. The Ld. Departmental Representative relying on the assessment order submitted that the order of the CIT(A) is requires to be reversed

Kartar Singh, Rohtak vs. ACIT, Circle- 42(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3268/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3268/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Kartar Singh, Vs Acit, C/O S.K. Bansal, Ca, Circle-42(1), 101, First Floor, Kochar Market, New Delhi-11 Jhajjar Road, Opp. Khanu Mandi, Rohtak, Haryana-12001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Cskps5940K Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 49(1)Section 54B

against the addition of Rs. 12,69,03,930/- arbitrarily and haphazardly without adjudicating the Revised grounds of appeal and additional evidences filed under Rule 46A in duplicate on 31.01.2019 and thus there is gross violation of principles of natural justice. (The assessment order may kindly be set aside with ... direction to the Ld. A.O. to pass afresh assessment order after considering all evidences and documents furnished and forwarded as additional evidences under rule 46A and as may be furnished during fresh 2 Kartar Singh assessment proceedings for completion of assessment and for computation of LTCG.) 2. That

Jyoti Sharma, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward1(2), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of my observations mentioned above

ITA 254/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 254/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Jyoti Sharma Qr No.3D, St 30, Sector-1, Bhilai, Durg-490 001 Pan : Avtps5669P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 68

Assessing Officer without considering the instructions to provide remand report called by CIT(A)-II, Raipur and without disposing off the additional evidences under rule 46A of the Rules. 2.That CIT Appeals-NFAC and AO have erred in facts and in law in treating the entire agricultural receipts of Rs.20

Amit Harit, Meerut vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Noida

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

ITA 1045/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediaamit Harit Vs. Dcit G-15/6, Shastri Nagar, Meerut International Taxation Uttar Pradesh – 250 004 Noida Pan No. Abzph 9529 B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144

resident was not having the knowledge of such notices and could Amit Harit vs. DCIT 3 not comply; (v). the evidences under Rule 46A were filed before CIT(A) to support his case for such income being not taxable viz; passport showing period of stay, Seaman Book record, statement ... relevant details were filed on the issues and leave of the CIT(A) was sought for admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The CIT(A) however, rejected the prayer of the assessee for admission of additional evidences in blatant transgression of nature justice despite

ACIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Gaurav Aggarwal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6203/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Delhi04 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR

evidence without giving opportunity to the AO to rebut the additional evidence produced by the appellant, clearly violating the provisions of Clause(3) of Rule 46A of I.T. Rules, 1962. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the AO has made the whole addition on the basis

ACIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Gaurav Aggarwal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6202/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Delhi04 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR

evidence without giving opportunity to the AO to rebut the additional evidence produced by the appellant, clearly violating the provisions of Clause(3) of Rule 46A of I.T. Rules, 1962. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the AO has made the whole addition on the basis

Shri Vinayak Sudhakar Malkotagi, Mumbai vs. ITO. Int Taxation Ward-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 549/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: PendingITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blevinayak Sudhakar Malkotagi V. Ito – International Taxation Flat No. 104, Plot No. 36 Ward – 3(2)(1) Gorai Shree Sahyog Chs 16Th Floor, Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Near Gorai Depot Borivali (W), Mumbai - 400091 Pan: Aqopm5908M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 2

Respondent's reply in this regard is therefore misleading and subject to confirmation bias. Disregarding production of additional evidence in terms of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962 a. The Appellant Assessee had filed a letter dated 23/01/2022 in response to notice issued under section 142(1) of Income

The DCIT Central-2, Indore vs. Smt Pritiben Patel, Barwani

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 32/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit, Central-2 Smt. Pritiben Patel Indore Subhash Choak, Khetiya, Barwani Vs. Maharashtra

Section 133(6)Section 68

furnishing of these details during assessment proceedings and the case of the assessee does not fall in any of the exceptions mentioned in Rule 46A of the IT Rules?” 2. The assesse is individual and engaged in trading of Petrol, Diesel and Lubricant Oil under the name & style ... invoices issued by IOCL as additional evidences. In the remand report, the AO has only dealt with the inadmissibility of additional evidences as per rule 46A of the Rules ignoring the vital aspect that the appellant had not given opportunity to respond on the conclusion being made for making addition