“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

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Noida vs. Aashikyana Civil Contractors P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9025/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 250(4)Section 68

That the powers of CIT(A) to admit or reject is not absolute but only subject to satisfaction of conditions under rule 46A( 1) to be specifically recorded in writing in the appellate order. 5. On facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in calling ... erred in admitting the additional evidence at appellate stage without appreciating that the purpose of 3 Aashiyana Civil Contractors Pvt. Ltd. rule 46A is to ensure that evidence is primarily led before the Income-tax Officer as held in Rajkumar Srimal 102 ITR 525 (Cal), Ganpatrai & Sons

ITO, Ward- 37(1), New Delhi vs. Aggarwal Trading, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5772/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Chand yadav, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth

Section 133ASection 143(3)

addition on account of excess cash found during the survey. 4. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) was not justified in accepting the additional evidence under Rule 46A as the assessee was provided sufficient opportunities during the assessment proceedings.” C. O. No. 27/DEL/2021 :- 3. The assessee has raised the following substantive grounds ... excess cash found during the survey. The Ld. DR has also submitted that the CIT(A) has not justified in accepting additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Act as assessee was provided sufficient opportunities during the assessment proceedings itself. Therefore, submitted that the appeal of the Revenue deserves

ACIT Circle-9(1), New Delhi vs. Fauji Exim Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3661/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

filed additional evidence which were admitted by the Ld. CIT(A) who also called for a remand report from the Ld. AO as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (“Rules”) vide letter dated 2 04.01.2019, the reply of which was submitted ... Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Since appellant has filed the confirmation of these parties during the appellate proceedings, hence remand report as per Rule 46A is called for from the AO. In the report, AO has objected in admitting additional evidences. In the rejoinder appellant has submitted that appellant

Sunil Kumar Garg, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 36(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3182/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Sabharwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR

Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 41Section 41(1)

further not correct under the law and to the facts of the case because of rejecting the fresh evidence filed under Rule-46A(b) of the Income Tax Rules, thereby explaining the difference of Rs.1,47,10,075/- in the balance credit amount appears to be in the name ... hands of the appellant as recommended by the Assessing Officer without independently examination of the facts contained in the Petition filed under Rule-46A(b) of the I.T. Rules with evidence containing therein that the appellant was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause to file the same before the Assessing

Sadhana Foundation, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal are dismissed and the addition of Rs

ITA 2129/DEL/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Narpat Singh

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 131

them during the course of their deposition before the AO on 24.3.05. Therefore, these affidavits are additional evidence and none of the conditions of rule 46A is satisfied for admission of additional evidence. Therefore, these affidavits are not admitted as additional evidence. Further, no comments have been offered with regard

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam vs. Nallamilli Sridevi, Tirupati

In the result, Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3/VIZ/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sri Pawan Chakrapani, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

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

additional evidence without providing reasonable opportunity to the Ld. AO to examine and rebut the same as envisaged under sub-rule(3) of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Tules, 1961 and Ground No. 7 raised by the Revenue is a general ground. 40. The two main cruxes ... Revenue are dismissed. 46. With respect to Ground No.7 raised by the Revenue regarding providing an opportunity to the Ld. AO as per Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962 for the additional evidence submitted before him, we are of the view that the Ld. CIT(A) has powers

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam vs. Nallamilli Sridevi, Tirupati

In the result, Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2/VIZ/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sri Pawan Chakrapani, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

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

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam vs. Vittalam Nataraj Prasad, Tirupati

In the result, Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1/VIZ/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sri Pawan Chakrapani, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

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

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(International Taxation), Visakhapatnam vs. Vittalam Nataraj Prasad, Tirupati

In the result, Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 247/VIZ/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sri Pawan Chakrapani, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

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

Om Prakash Verma, Bhopal vs. Income Tax Officer, Jagdalpur

ITA 87/RPR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 87/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Om Prakash Verma H. No.53, Star Homes Campus, Bawadiya Kalan, Bhopal (M.P)-462 039 Pan : Aaipv9836F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Jagdalpur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 156

occasion to substantiate the source of cash deposits in his bank account, the assessee had filed with the CIT(Appeals) an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 for admission of certain additional evidence, viz. copy of sale agreement, copy of registered sale deed and copy

Vrp Landbase Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 17(1), New Delhi

ITA 2726/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Section 144Section 68

appellate order passed by Ld. C1T(A) dated 6. 10.12.2018 Copy of the remand report issued by the Ld. Assessing 7. Authority under Rule-46A dated 28.02.2017 Copy of the assessment order passed by the Ld. Assessing 8. Authority u/s 144 of the Act dated 28.03.2014 Copy of Income ... Landbase (P) Ltd. vs. ITO Copy of the audited financial statement of the appellant tor 12. the year ended 31.03.2011 Application under Rule 46A dt 18.03.2015 filed by the appellant alongwith following relevant documents 13. Application under Rule 46A dt 18.03.2015 Affidavit sworn by CA Kapil Arora regarding refusal

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bathinda vs. M/S. Shuvam Colonisers P.Ltd, Bathinda

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 577/ASR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 144Section 250

justified in admitting the documents produced before him as additional evidence as they are not covered under Rule 46A of the I.T. Act.” 2. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee’s case was assessed u/s 144 with an addition of Rs.53,51,089/- and Rs.11

ACIT Central-2, Indore vs. M/S Mayur Industries, Fatepur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 212/IND/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniit(Ss)A No.212/Ind/2021 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Vs. Acit, Central-2, M/S. Mayur Industries, Indore Khandwa "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abefm 4664 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri P. K. Mishra, Cit.D.R. Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Assessee By : 19.12.2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 15.03.2023 O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Bhopal (M.P.) (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Order Dated 30.12.2019 Passed By The Dcit (Central)-2, Indore (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘A.Y.’) 2018-19 With The Following Ground:

For Appellant: 19.12.2022For Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.D.R

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

comments. 5. The Ld. AO in the remand report challenged the legality of acceptance of additional evidence as per Rule 46A of the Income-Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) but failed to comment on merits of the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee ... entire remand report re-iterated the fact that additional evidences filed during the course of appellate proceedings were beyond the purview of Rule 46A of the Income-Tax Rules, 1962 and therefore, those additional evidences were required to be rejected. Copy of remand report dated 03-08-2021 is already

Late Noorulkalam Abdulmajid Shaikh Represented Through His Son Husnejamal Nurulkalam Shaikh, Surat vs. ITO Ward-3(2)(1), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 140/SRT/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

could retrieve the bank statement after finalization of assessment order, i.e. during the appellate stage. The assessee prayed to admit the additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 4. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee, upheld the additions made by the Assessing ... number of labourers who belongs to Bihar and working in adjoining area where the assessee was residing. The assessee also filed application under Rule 46A to admit such evidence on the ground that the assessee could not furnish such evidence as the transactions relate to eight years

Late Noorulkalam Abdulmajid Shaikh Represented Through His Son Husnejamal Nurulkalam Shaikh, Surat vs. ITO Ward-3(2)(1), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 139/SRT/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

ITO Ward - 3(4), Noida vs. Shobha Agnihotri, Noida

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1193/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Memebr D-4, Sec-27, Noida – 201 301 Noida-201 301 Pan No. Aewpa 0847 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -None- Revenue By Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.03.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Noida Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under:

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 68

before him during the course of appellate proceedings and without confronting these additional evidences to the Assessing Officer, which is violative not only of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules but also of the principles of natural justice. 3. Without prejudice to ground no -1 above

ITO, Ward- 4(1), New Delhi vs. Baba Alloys Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 29/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 68

additional evidences filed by the assessee even as the case of the assessee does not fall in any of the exceptions laid down in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.” 3. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.2.3 Cr. on account of share capital received from seven corporate ... persons appeared before the AO. The AO further submitted that the case of the assessee do not fulfill in the provisions of Rule 46A(1)(a) to 46A(1)(d). After considering the remand report, the ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee has duly discharged their burden of proving

ITO, Udaipur vs. Shri Suresh Kumar Khatik, Udaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 169/JODH/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur13 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 144Section 147

details before the AO were existing and AO was also not given opportunity of rebut the additional evidence thereby ignoring the provision of Rule 46A(1) of the IT Rules. 2.2 accepting the wrong method adopted by the assessee for determination of the peak credit ignoring the facts that ... revenue is in appeal before us. The Ld D.R submitted that the Ld CIT(A) has considered new materials in violation of Rule 46A of Income tax Rules, i.e., he has not confronted those new materials with the assessing officer. The Ld AR for the assessee, on the contrary, submitted

ITO, Udaipur vs. Shri Suresh Kumar Khatik, Udaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 168/JODH/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur13 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 144Section 147

A.J International, Delhi vs. ITO Ward30(1), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1734/DEL/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

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

available on record. I find that the learned CIT(Appeals0 has decided the issue by observing as under: “5.3.5. On perusal of the aforesaid Rule 46A of the IT Rules and the details & submission filed by the appellant and assessment order passed by the AO, it is noticed that ... ground of appeal. 5.3.6. In view of the above discussed facts in detail, in the present fact & circumstances of the case, the provisions under Rule 46A do not permit the CIT(A) to admit the additional evidences submitted by the appellant assessee now during the appellate proceedings. Hence