“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 Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1), Raipur vs. M/S Sankalp Realities, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 47/RPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.47/Rpr/2018 Co. No.01/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Sankalp Realities, 28/620 Anand Niwas, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Abcsf6391P ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

evidence produced by the assessee, if any, without allowing the AO, proper opportunity to examine the same, thereby violating the provision on law under Rule 46A of I T Rules?" 6. "Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

JCIT, Circle-22(2), New Delhi vs. S R Foils & Tissue P. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 540/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jcit, Vs S R Foils & Tissue P.Ltd., Circle-22(2), 2Nd Floor, Vardhman Plaza-Ii, New Delhi. J-Block, Community Centre, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027. Pan-Aaacr7410E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Upvan Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Maninder Kaur, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.01.2023 Order

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 33(2)Section 53Section 53(1)Section 68

Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A). Before Ld.CIT(A), the assessee also filed certain evidence alongwith application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”). Ld.CIT(A) sought Remand Report from the AO and after considering the Remand Report and material placed before ... evidence as the concerned confirmation were already on the record before AO. The Ld. AR further stated that it is appropriate to state that rule. 46A was referred only statistical purpose to cover arty negligible default on either part. The Ld. AR further relied upon various case laws plethora

M/S. Telesonic Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 3140/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.3140/Del/2017, A.Y. 2008-09

Section 144Section 68

observed that the Ld. AO had passed order u/s 144 of the Act and before Ld. CIT(A) additional evidences under Rule 46A were filed on which remand report was sought from Ld. AO ITA No. 3140./Del/2017 M/s. Telesonic Systems (I) P. Ltd. 3 and based upon the same

M/S. Om Shiv Properties Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward -6(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 306/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Gogra, C.AFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 249Section 40A(3)Section 5

submitted on dt. 16.1.2020 in Office of CIT (A) through online e-filing portal vide document id no. ITBA/APL/SA/APL_2019- 20/1023633515(1) dt. 16.1.2020 under Rule 46A wherein relevant evidences which corroborates the circumstances under which appellant was forced to make payment in cash have not been considered which may please ... Properties Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. Apart from this, it was brought to our notice that assessee had also filed application for placing additional evidence under Rule 46A before the ld. CIT (A) on 16.01.2020 which consists of confirmation letters from the buyers about their need for cash payment while executing sale

M/S. Hindustan Projects, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2 (1) (1), Rajkot

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

ITA 416/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68

furnished sufficient opportunities during the assessment proceedings. Furthermore, the case of the assessee does not fall under any of the clause provided under rule 46A of income tax rules relating to the admission of the additional evidences. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer

ACIT (OSD)-2(2), Mumbai vs. Shoppers Stop Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1163/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1163/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Acit(Osd)(Tds)-2(2) बिधम/ Shoppers Stop Ltd Room No. 706, 7Th Floor, K. 5Th Floor, Umang Tower, Vs. G. Mittal Ayurvedic Malad Link Road, Hospital Bldg, Charni Road Minidspace, Malad (W), (W), Mumbai-400002. Mumbai-400064. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcs4383A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Manan Mathuria Revenue By: Shri Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: The Present Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-52, Mumbai Dated 12.03.2021 For Ay. 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Directed Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Holding That, The Payments Made By The Assessee To Several Vendors In Relation To Its Procurements From Them, Consisting Of Appeals/Clothes/Footwear/Goods Manufactured By These Vendors, Were Not In The Nature Of “Works Contract” But “Purchase Of Goods” & That, Therefore, The Provisions Of Section 194C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Invoked By The Assessing Officer In Relation Thereto, Were Not Applicable.

For Appellant: Shri Manan MathuriaFor Respondent: Shri Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar

Section 133ASection 194CSection 201(1)

that there was no works contract. The assessee, accordingly, filed additional evidences which was accompanied with a prayer for admission in terms of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 [herein after ‘the Rules’]. It is noted that these additional evidences were sent to the AO for his comments

Dy.CIT 7(1) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mattel Toys (India) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas,

ITA 2304/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Cit, Circle-7(1)(1), M/S Mattel Toys (India) Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Phoenix House, B-Wing, 4Th Floor, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 462, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Mumbai-400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaccm 2563 P Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Ketan Ved, AR

rofit/Operating Income, which was not remanded to the rofit/Operating Income, which was not remanded to the TPO/AO for his report, in contravention to Rule 46A of the TPO/AO for his report, in contravention to Rule 46A of the TPO/AO for his report, in contravention to Rule 46A of the Income

ACIT -1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Adhiraj Construction Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1410/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2012-2013

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

facts prevailing in that case. He submitted that the Tribunal has noted that the Ld CIT(A) has accepted additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A; the assessee did not prove credit worthiness of all the creditors; there were serious errors in the finding of facts given

Avinash Narayan Sutar, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 28(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the three appeals filed by the asssessee are allowed

ITA 1029/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 1029, 1030 & 1031/Mum/2020 (A.Ys: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2010-11) Avinash Narayan Sutar Vs. Ito – 28(1)(2) Plot No. 582, Laxmi Tower No.6, Vashi Niwas, Sector -1, Station, Navi Mumbai- Shiravana, Nerul, Navi 400703. Mumbai – 400706. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arsps9036R Appellant .. Respondent Ito – 28(1)(2) Vs. Avinash Narayan Sutar Tower No.6, Vashi Plot No. 582, Laxmi Station, Navi Mumbai- Niwas, Sector -1, 400703. Shiravana, Nerul, Navi Mumbai – 400706. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arsps9036R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hariom Tulsiyan.ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha.DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessee furnished a reply vide letter dated 12.02.2019 which is reproduced as under- Assessing Officer's request not to admit additional evidence Under Rule 46A of Income tax Rule, since appellant has given various opportunities by sending notices U/s.142(1) and Show cause letter. My submissions in this regard ... give time in view of assessment was getting time barred. In view of above fact, appellant request your Honor to admit additional evidence Under Rule 46A of Income Rule. Beside above, Assessing Officer has wrongly considered cash deposit Rs. 1,64,78,801 infact there was cash payment for expenses

M/S. Aspire Systems India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Adl. CIT, Company Range-1, Chennai

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 785/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2000/Chny/2019 & 762/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2011-12 The Deputy/Joint Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Aspire Systems India Income Tax, Private Limited, Old. No. 4, New No. 7, Corporate Circle 1(1), Ii Trust Link Road, Mandaveli, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 028. [Pan:Aacca4543M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 785/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Aspire Systems India Vs. The Additional Commissioner Of Private Limited, Old. No. 4, New No. Income Tax, 7, Ii Trust Link Road, Mandaveli, Company Range-1, Chennai 600 028. Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit Assessee By : Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well Are Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 29.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year

For Appellant: Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 14ASection 40

remitted the matter to the file of Assessing Officer to verify the interest expenditure, which is in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 4 I.T.A. Nos. 2000/Chny/19 & 762 & 785/Chny/20 1962. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that all the issues

JCIT (OSD), Corporate Circle - 1 (1), Chennai vs. M/S. Aspire Systems India Pvt. Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 762/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 14ASection 40

DCIT, Chennai vs. Aspire Systems (India) P. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2000/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 14ASection 40

ITO, Coimbatore vs. M.Balasaravanan, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as allowed for

ITA 1934/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1934/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Income Tax Officer, V. Mr.M.Balasaravanan, Non-Corporate Ward-4(2), No.1/46A, Jothi Nagar, 63-A, Race Course Road, Thiruvalluvar Street, Coimbatore. Kalapalayam, Theethipalayam, Coimbatore-641 010. [Pan: Aplpb 0708 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Department By : Mr.D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit

For Respondent: Mr.D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

hearing, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Revenue has challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in light of provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, and thus, the issue involved in appeal may be set aside to the file ... main grievance of the Revenue in their appeal filed before the Tribunal is on violation of principle of natural justice in light of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, on the ground that the Ld.CIT(A) has allowed relief to the assessee by admitting certain additional evidences without

Transworld Terminals Dadri Private Limited (Formerly Albatross Inland Ports Pvt Ltd), Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Mumbai

ITA 2581/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2018-2019

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 69CSection 80Section 80GSection 80I

given to the assessee, the assessee has neither filed any submissions on merits of the case nor produced any additional evidence in terms of rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962 in respect of the additions/disallowance made by the AO.” 9. All these facts go to prove that the assessee

M/S.Standard Fireworks P Ltd, Sivakasi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Madurai

In the result, the appeal stand allowed

ITA 279/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthilkumaran (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

impugned order. 10. The ClT(Appeals) failed to appreciate that having furnished additional evidence to substantiate the claim of share capital contributions received under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and further having entertained the said additional evidences, the decision to follow the remand report mechanically which

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sundaram Clayton Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the revenue’s corresponding grounds stand dismissed

ITA 1322/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR

Section 143Section 160(1)Section 40Section 9Section 9(2)

after getting all the necessary details from the assessee and arrive at the correct conclusion. 2.8) The Ld CIT(A) under the powers of Rule 46A of the income tax rules, ought to have given the assessing officer a reasonable opportunity to examine the material evidence before directing

Vertex Spinning Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 256/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144

since there was no much compliance before the AO Later during the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has filed certain additional information under Rule 46A and my predecessor has forwarded the said information to AO calling for remand report vide his letter dated 18/09/2013 As the appellant

M/S. Firmenich Aromatics Production India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- 9(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6116/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna/Amol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Somaiya

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92CSection 94C

Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal before the CIT(A) on this issue. 16. The Appellant moved Application for Additional Evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. It was submitted that the Appellant was prevented from submitting the additional evidence as the Appellant had changed the accounting

Ranisati Capital Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1529/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: PendingITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, D/R

Section 143(2)Section 250

deciding the appeal ex-parte. In the second ground the assessee has submitted that it be permitted to produce additional evidence in terms of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. In Ground No. 3, the assessee has submitted that the order passed

Sahana Builders Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT(A) 52, Mumbai

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

ITA 2217/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Sahana Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., 402, Plot No.54, Sagar Avenue, S.V. Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400058. Pan: Aahcs4782P ...... Appellant Vs. Cit(A)-52, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Dy.Cit-4(2), Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. ..... Appellant Vs. M/S Sahana Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., 402, Plot No.54B, Junction Of S.V. Road & Lallubhai Park, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400058. Pan: Aahcs4782P ...... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Amit Bothra & Ms. Manish Chandak, Ar Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Soumendu Kumar Dash- Sr. Dr M/S Sahana Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Bothra &For Respondent: Sh. Soumendu Kumar Dash- Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(ii)Section 37(1)Section 41(1)

utilized for business purposes and also, without giving the opportunity to AO to examine the additional evidences/details filed by the as per Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962, while deciding the issue. 3. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ... amount of Rs 4,68,945/- u/s 36(1)(iii). On this issue Revenue again objected to the admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A without giving the opportunity to AO. M/s Sahana Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. 11. We have gone through both the orders i.e. AO and Ld.CIT