“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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 33(1), Mumbai vs. Alf Engineering Company, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2055/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 80I

impugned orders is not based upon any evidence, and even no remand report was sought from the Id. Assessing Officer which is violation of rule 46A of the Rules. Even before under section, the Ld counsel for the assessee fairly explained that no question was asked by the Assessing Officer

Income Tax Officer-13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Kiritbhai K. Thummar, Mumbai

In the result, assessee‟s cross objection is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 697/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin ChhagFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

details. Shri Kiritbhai K. Thummar ITA No.697/Mum./2018 CO No. 115/Mum./2019 Accordingly, the assessee filed additional evidences before the learned CIT(A) under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, in respect of its loan transactions. The said additional evidences filed by the assessee were forwarded to the concerned

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Enzen Global Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 2550/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 45

revenue has raised ground No.2 before the Tribunal. The limited grievance of the Revenue is that in terms of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter called ‘the Rules’), the CIT(A) was obliged to confront the additional evidence filed before him to the AO and obtain ... High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sanu Family Trust (2012) 209 Taxman 529 (Karnataka) has taken a view that rigors of the Rule 46A(1) to (3) will not be attracted when the Commissioner exercises his inherent power under 46A(4) of the Rule and calls for evidence

M/S. Enzen Global Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(1)(4), Banglaoore

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

ITA 2332/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 45

Income Tax Officer, Ncw-8(2), Chennai vs. Shri Sivanantham, Chennai

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

ITA 984/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Venkata Raman, CA

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

Assessing Officer towards cash deposits by accepting certain additional evidences without providing those evidences to the comments of the Assessing Officer in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Similarly, the learned CIT(A) has scaled down estimation of profit to 6% without giving opportunity ... opportunity to the Assessing Officer to verify case of the assessee. 8. The learned A.R. for the assessee referring to sub-rule 4 of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962, submitted that the CIT(A) does have power to call for additional evidence and 5 decide the issue

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai vs. Chinnasamy Mani, Chennai

ITA 3078/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

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

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

Section 143(3)Section 68

evident, the sole subject matter of appeals is addition u/s 68 for Rs.527.88 Lacs. 2. The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for violation of Rule 46A and submitted that the documents / explanation which led to adjudication in the impugned order was never confronted to Ld. AO and therefore, the same ... violation of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962. These rules empower CIT(A) to accept additional evidence in certain specified circumstances. The rules further provide that in such cases, a copy of such additional evidence will be sent to concerned AO who can examine the evidence or documents

DCIT-9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Allied Offshore Services P. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1520/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80G

orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) contended inter alia that while entertaining the additional evidence by the Ld. CIT(A) provisions contained under rule 46A of the Act have not been complied with; that no working has been given by the assessee during the assessment proceedings nor during ... referred to in the impugned orders. When additional evidence entertained by the Ld. CIT(A) has not been brought on record in accordance with Rule 46A subsequent findings on the same are vitiated because there is not even a whisper of remand report admittedly submitted in this case

DCIT - 9 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Allied Offshore Servies P. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1519/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80G

DCIT - 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Allied Offshore Services P. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1518/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80G

Devappa Muniraju, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(2)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 981/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vishal S. Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad K., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 2(14)Section 234ASection 234BSection 48Section 54B

submitted confirmations from 3 persons which the CIT(Appeals) did not consider on the basis that the additional evidence are not furnished as per Rule 46A and no explanation was provided for additional evidence. The ld. DR supported the order of the lower authorities. 14. After hearing both the parties ... Shri Gullapa Narasimmaiyah, Shri T.K. Nagesh before the CIT(Appeals), who rejected the same on the reason that the same was not as per Rule 46A by relying on the decision of ITAT Bangalore in the case of Anupam Kothari [ITA No.837/Bang/2012]. It was submitted by the ld. Page

DCIT Central Circle 5(3), Mumbai vs. Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for AY 2014-15 is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal for AY 2015-16 is dismissed

ITA 1445/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1445 & 1446/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Breach Candy Swimming Dcit Cc– 5(3), बिधम/ Bath Trust R. No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Air Mumbai India Building, Nariman Vs. Point, Mumbai-40 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaatb0133F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Ld. Dr : प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Waglay, Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 08.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 24.12.2021, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-53, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 For Ay 2014-15 & 2015-16. 2

For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Waglay, Ld. AR

Section 10(15)(iv)Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

details enclosed herewith on the record of your honour during the hearing of the appellate proceedings before your honour (in terms of Rule 46A(1)(c) of I.T. Rules, 1962) since they go to the root of the appeal and would further request your honour to consider the same

Shri Ramji L Kuchhadiya, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-21(3)(1), Mumai, Mumbai

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

ITA 6039/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ritesh Kumar ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ajeya Kumar Ojha

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 250

balance-sheet of Ronak Enterprises. The learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 28/06/2019 rejected the additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The learned CIT(A) also held that the assessee has failed to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction with

Iftekhar Mukhtar Siddiqui, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 5275/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyaliftekhar Mukhtar Siddiqui, Room No. 60, Prem Nagar, Behind Lucky Hotel, Sion Agra Road, Sion, Mumbai-400022 Pan: Bgsps0603N ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-26(1)(5), C-1 Building, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051. ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Ms. Kavita Kaushik Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271FSection 274Section 44ASection 69A

framed u/s 144 and assessee had not filed any return of income. Further to substantiate his arguments assessee hadn’t filed any application under rule 46A(which is mandatory on the part of the assessee as a procedural requirement).The Ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal on this technical ground

DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Goldstar Metal Solution P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 297/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)

reason for admitting such additional evidence and also without giving an opportunity to the AO to examine the same which is a violation of Rule 46A and hence ought to be quashed as bad in law?” 10. The relevant material facts are like this. During the course of scrutiny assessment

ACIT 33(1), Mumbai vs. Abhishek R. Vyas, Mumbai

ITA 4116/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, D.R

Section 133Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 148

fresh set of documents to substantiate the profit & loss account and balance sheet including tax audit report which was admitted as additional evidence under rule 46A of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the remand report was called from the AO which is dated

ACIT 33(1), Mumbai vs. Abhishek R. Vyas, Mumbai

ITA 4115/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, D.R

Section 133Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 148

ACIT 33(1), Mumbai vs. Abhishek R. Vyas, Mumbai

ITA 4114/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, D.R

Section 133Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 148

Wns Global; Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 14 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 295/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Cross Objection No. 52/Mum/2020 (Arising In Ita No. 2383/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 10-11)

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Tejandra Pal Singh, DR

discussion by Transfer Pricing on any objection of appellant and yet without remanding the case to the TPO which is violation of Rule 46A? 9. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) having rightly held CUP is not most appropriate method

DCIT-14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Wns Global Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2383/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Cross Objection No. 52/Mum/2020 (Arising In Ita No. 2383/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 10-11)

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Tejandra Pal Singh, DR

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Bharath Infra Exports & Imports Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R, Addl.DIT (DR)

Section 133ASection 14ASection 69

Whether CIT(A) has erred in allowing the additional evidence without sending it to the AO for verification as mandated under Rule 46A Sub rule 3 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in import and export ... could been seen from Point nos 12, 13 ,14 &15, the respondent had submitted two Affidavits before the Learned CIT(A) under Rule 46A. The Learned CIT(A), without providing opportunity to the AO, as required under Rule 46A, has passed the impugned order. Therefore, it is submitted that