“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

The Income Tax Officer, Internationaltaxation, Vijayawada vs. Krishna Mohan Malempati, Wellington Manor

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 121/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50C

examine such additional evidence and submit his report as to the admissibility or otherwise of the same in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have followed the principles of natural justice and allowed the Assessing ... additional evidence and to submit his comments and evidence in rebuttal of the same, if any, as envisaged under sub-rule (3) of Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962 before deciding the issue against the Reenue. 8. Any other ground of appeal that may be pleaded with the prior

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhilai vs. Mesers Metex Engineers, Bhilai

In the result Ground No 8 of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 247/RPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.238/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) M/S Metex Engineers, Vs Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.247/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Vs M/S Metex Engineers, Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B.Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K.Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K.Singh, CIT-DR

Section 68

were produced by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) which were never produced before the AO, therefore, there was a clear violation of rule 46A by the ld. CIT(A). It was therefore, the prayer that the decision of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue was based on additional ... evidences with no cognizance to provisions of rule 46A of the Act, thus, the decision of ld. CIT(A) is subject to reversal and the findings of AO deserves to be restored. Alternatively, the issue should be remanded back to the files of AO for fresh adjudication. 14.1 Against

Mesers Metex Engineers, Bhilai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhilai

In the result Ground No 8 of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 238/RPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K.Singh, CIT-DR

Section 68

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Raipur vs. M/S Kewalya Park, Civil Lines, Raipur

The appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 171/RPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.171/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax , Vs M/S Kewalya Park Circle-3(1), Raipur Shop No. 14, First Floor, Bombay Market, Raipur (C.G) Pan No. :Aaifk 4253 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) : Shri G. S. Agrawal, Ca "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S. K. Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-DR

Section 250(4)Section 43C

evidence produced by the assessee without allowing the AO if any, proper opportunity to examine the same, thereby violating the provision on law under Rule 46A of IT Rules?" 12. "Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting ... examine such additional evidence and to rebut on the same. The ld. CIT(A) has erred by violating the provisions of rule 46A of the IT rules by not providing a reasonable opportunity of confronting to the ld. AO with the additional evidence to offer her comments/observation on the same

Subhash Chand Patni, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

ITA 207/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Gogra (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Bhalla Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4222/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2012-13 Bhalla Chemical Works P. Ltd., The Dcit,Circle 4(2), New Delhi M-237, Greater Kailash-Ii, New Delhi 110048 Vs. Pan Aaacb 4077 D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Rajat Jain, Ca Shri Ashish Mendiratta, Ar For Revenue : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2023 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, A.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-2, New Delhi Dated 28.02.2017 For Ay 2012-13. 2. When The Matter Was Called For Hearing The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Submitted At The Outset The He Seeks To Press Only Ground No. 3, Ground No. 4 & Ground No. 6 Of The Grounds Of Appeal & Other Grounds Raised In The Appeal Memo May Be Treated As Withdrawn. 3. In The Light Of Submission Made, Remaining Other Grounds Are Dismissed & Remaining Grounds Are Adjudicated Here Under:- 3. Addition On Account Of Car Expenses.

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

transaction. 5.3 The learned counsel contends that these facts were presented before Ld. CIT(A) along without formal application under rule 46A of the I.T Rules. The learned counsel thus submits that merely on account technical defect committed before the first appellate authority, the denial of relief in wholesale would ... serious miscarriage of justice. 5.4 The learned DR for the revenue on the other hand submits that in the absence of formal application under Rule 46A, the Ld. CIT(A) had no option but to ignore such evidences. 5.5 On appraisal of the facts and circumstances, we find merit

M/S.Atc Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited(Formerly Known As Viom Networks Limited), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 9(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 6148/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Acountant Member

For Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai.CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 35DSection 40

erred in not admitting the additional evidence regarding the claim of deprecation on shelter allegedly for the reason that no formal application under Rule 46A of IT Rules, 1962 was filed. 3. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred ... additional evidence regarding claim of deduction of Rs.2,04,89,263/- paid to TTSL allegedly for the reason that no formal application under Rule 46A of IT Rules, 1962 was filed.” 2. At the time of hearing the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is not pressing the grounds of appeals

ACIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi vs. Solitaire World Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9627/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.9627/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 बनाम Acit Solitaire World Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-28, Vs. 2678/1, Diamond Mall New Delhi. Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaocs1369R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

Rs.1,25,00,000/- 12. Before the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee has furnished various evidences along with application for admission of the evidences under Rule 46A of IT Rules. The Ld.CIT(A) called for remand report from the AO and the AO submitted his remand report on the addition made ... stating that the assessee has been provided ample opportunities and the assessee did not respond and therefore no additional evidence is admissible under Rule 46A. In so far as the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit of Rs.25,88,23,427/- the AO in the remand report stated

Shri Subir Yudhisthir Das, Belapur, Thane (Maharastra) vs. The CIT(A)-13, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 19/RJT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Kushiram Jadhvani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 246ASection 271

additional evidence filed by the assessee, with respect to purchase and sale of shares on the ICICI direct platform, to the assessing officer under Rule 46A on the ground that this may not serve any fruitful purpose. While dismissing the appeal of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) made ... Under the circumstances I am also of the considered opinion that sending this additional evidences (print outs of icicidirect.com) to the AO under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rule may not serve any fruitful purpose. It is also noted that the appellant has not shown that the purchases of shares

DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur vs. Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

ITA 181/JPR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

ITA 112/JPR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

ACIT, Circle-19(1), New Delhi vs. Ongc Videsh Limited, New Delhi

ITA 2185/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit, Vs. Ongc Videsh Limited Circle-19(1), Tower-B5, Nelson Mandela New Delhi Marg, Vasant Kinj, New Delhi Pan : Aaaco1230F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37(1)Section 42

Rs.94,91,110/- had accrued for the month of February & March respectively. 12.5. The appellant moved an application Tor submitting additional evidence under Rule 46A. The appellant gave evidence that deposits in the fund were made during the year. The matter was referred to the AO for a report

ITO (E), Ward- 2(3), New Delhi vs. The Managing Committee of Shivala Apa Gangadhar, Delhi

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the petition under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 226/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 226/Del/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer (E) The Managing बनाम Committee Of Shivala Vs. Ward : 2 (3) Apa Gangadhar, Near Red Fort, New Delhi. Chandni Chowk, Delhi – 110 006. Pan No. Aaatt7829A अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""थ"/ Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V. Raj Kumar, Adv

Section 11(1)(d)

most favourable consideration" 2. During the course of the hearing before the Ld. CIT (A) the Appellant Trust had moved an application under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 for admission of additional evidence. This is stated by the Ld. CIT (A) on page 6 para ... seen that no specific comments have been offered by the Assessing Officer regarding the contention of the appellant in the application under Rule 46A. It has merely been mentioned that the circumstances and conditions of Rule 46A do not exist in the case of the assessee. No comments have also

Uttaranchal Estates P.Ltd, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Circle-27(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 9489/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri M. Baranwal, Anuj Garg

Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

application for additional evidence holding that the Appellant's case does not fall under any of the conditions as per the provisions of Rule 46A ignoring the detailed facts and submitted during the hearings. 9. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Ld. AO/ CIT (A) erred

Jatinder Kumar Ahuja, Kindom of Bahrain vs. DCIT, International Taxation Circle, Gurugram

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

ITA 2609/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sameer Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

sale consideration was received in cash which was deposited in bank account jointly operated by her and her husband. An application under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962 (“Rules”) was also submitted with a request to admit the additional evidence. The Ld. CIT(A) called for the remand report ... assessment proceedings resulting in the ex-parte addition to the income of the assessee. However, during appellate proceedings, the assessee made an application under Rule 46A of the Rules for admission of additional the Ld. AO. The additional evidence consisted of copy of extracts of bank statement; copy of registered

The CIT-I, Indore vs. M/S Man Developments, Indore

ITA 97/IND/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Acit-Central-2 M/S Man Development, Indore 304, Vishal Astra, बनाम/ Vijay Nagar Vs. Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aakfm 2713 N Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Assessee By Shri S.C. Padliya, Ar Date Of Hearing 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.05.2023

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

were furnished by assessee to establish the genuineness of loans taken and interest paid to those parties. 5. During first-appeal, the assessee invoked Rule 46A and filed additional evidences whereupon the CIT(A) called Remand-Report from AO. The AO filed Remand-Report and thereafter the assessee filed ... file sufficient documentary evidences which led the AO to make addition. However, during first appellate proceeding, the assessee filed additional evidences under Rule 46A whereupon the CIT(A) called remand report from AO, which the AO submitted on 13.10.2020, a copy is placed at Page

ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna vs. M/S Tirupati Homes Ltd, Patna

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

ITA 71/PAT/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleita Nos.70 & 71/Pat/2020 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit, Central Circle-3, Patna M/S. Tirupati Homes Limited Ground Floor, Arvina Vs Apartment, Nageshwar Colony, Patna – 800001. Pan: Aadct 7444 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Alok Kumar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) – 3, Patna Dated 18.06.2020 & 19.06.2020 Respectively For A.Y. 2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,35,06,630/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Undisclosed/Misreporting Of Sale Of Flats, Accepting The Contention & Calculation Made By The Assessee In Which The Main Questionable Point Is Deduction Of Expense Of Rs.5,19,35,503/- On Account Of "Excess Provision Of Earlier Years Deducted'" To Complete The Substantially Completed Units. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Accepted This Contention Which Was Made For The First Time Before Him, Without Making Proper Verification & Verifying Corresponding Entry In The Accounts.

For Appellant: Shri Alok Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144

operating in the assessment proceedings. The Ld.CIT(A) accepted explanation provided by the assessee for the first time before him in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. The Ld.CIT(A) even did not ask the reason for not providing explanation to the A.0. Further, M/s. Tirupati Homes Limited

ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna vs. M/S Tirupati Homes Ltd, Patna

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

ITA 70/PAT/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 May 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Alok Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144

Ajay Jain, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Mumbai

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

ITA 473/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Amit BothraFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Chaturvedi

Section 112Section 143(3)Section 250

under the circumstances of the case in passing the Order without going through the records of the case and seeing that an application under Rule 46A of Income tax Rules, 1962 was already filed by your appellant wherein all the records and documents mentioned by the Assessing Officer were already ... Rs.81,04,212, the assessee also furnished additional documents, which could not be filed during the assessment proceedings, along with an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. However, the learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on both issues. Being

I.T.O. -12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Alvess Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue and Cross Objections by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2455/MUM/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 2455/मुं/ 2022 (िन.व. 2014-15) Ito-12(1)(1) Mumbai, Room No.129, Ground Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Alvess Developers Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.11 Jtn Of 29Th & 16Th Road, Opp Gurunanak Garden, Bandra(West),Mumbai 400 050. Pan: Aaccp-0964-F ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent C.O. No.132/Mum/2022 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 2455/Mum/2022 (A.Y.2014-15)] M/S. Alvess Developers Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.11 Jtn Of 29Th & 16Th Road, Opp Gurunanak Garden, Bandra(West),Mumbai 400 050. Pan: Aaccp-0964-F ..... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Ito-12(1)(1) ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai. Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 68

NO.132/MUM/2022 affording reasonable opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine the additional documents filed by the assessee. Thus, there is violation of Rule 46A. 5. On the other hand, Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the books of the assessee are audited and were furnished ... 22/08/2022. 6. Both sides heard, orders of authorities below examined. The short prayer made on behalf of the Revenue is violation of Rule 46A. The assessee is in the business of sale and purchase of flats. It is not disputed by the Revenue that assessee had furnished audited accounts before