“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

M/S Bharat Cooking Coal Limited, Dhanbad vs. ACIT Cir-1, Dhanbad

In the result, both appeals of revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 291/RAN/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.291,293,294/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacb 7934 M & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.300 & 302/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Vs. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M & Cross Objection Nos.09 & 11/Ran/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.300&302/Ran/2017) (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.K.Chowdhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 20.09.2017 & 19.09.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011-

For Appellant: Shri M.K.ChowdharyFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR

Section 32(2)

claim in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. as also the provisions of Rule 46A of IT Rules. 40 M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. 29. We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that these claims were

Chaman Lal, Mandi vs. Income Tax Officer, Mandi

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

ITA 489/CHANDI/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: the National Faceless Appeals Centre-Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) and the appeal is dismissed and stated that in the absence of any document/ evidence, no separate reasons needs to be recorded by the appellate authority for affirming the order of A.O. and decided that "It is evident that the appellant during the assessment as well as appellate proceedings failed to furnish documentary evidences/ proper explanation in support of his contention, so in view of aforesaid facts hence the

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kumar, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

been held in a number of cases including in Keshav mills co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1965) ITR 365(SC) and now recognized as rule 46A that the ITAT appellate Authority has a right to admit the additional evidence in the interest of justice. I therefore requested to accord kind permission ... judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (56 ITR 365), and the principles now embodied in Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules. 6.4 In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Ld. AR prays that the additional evidences sought

Income Tax Officer, Varanasi vs. Neonatal Health Academy, Varanasi

In the result, for statistical purposes, both appeals are partly allowed

ITA 132/VNS/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi05 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 270

should be subjected to scrutiny and examination by the Assessing Officer. In coming to this conclusion, we are guided by provisions of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, reproduced below for the ease of reference: Rule 46(A) (3) The 84[Joint Commissioner] (Appeals) or, as the case ... rebuttal of the additional evidence produced by the appellant. (C.1) Even if the additional evidences were admitted by the learned CIT(A) under Rule 46A(4) of the Income Tax Rules, the learned CIT(A) failed in examining the merits of the additional evidences on his own as well

Income Tax Officer, Varanasi vs. Neonatal Health Academy, Varanasi

In the result, for statistical purposes, both appeals are partly allowed

ITA 131/VNS/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi05 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 270

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2 (1), Varanasi vs. Prominent Datamatics Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Varanasi

ITA 135/VNS/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi05 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 124(1)(a)Section 124(2)Section 124(3)(a)Section 250(1)Section 255(4)Section 69A

said appellate order was passed in violation of Section 250(1) and 250(2) of the 1961 Act as well in violation of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962? 7. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, is it fair and appropriate on the part of ITAT ... suffering from incurable defect of being in violation of Section 250(1) and 250(2) of the 1961 Act as well in violation of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, or not ? (A.1.1) The Hon'ble Third Member has passed order dated 09/10/2025; which is reproduced below

Raisoni Bagrecha Diamonds Private Limited, Jalgaon vs. Pne-C-(25)(1), Circle 1, Jalgaon

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

ITA 2550/PUN/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2548 & 2550/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Raisoni Bagrecha Diamonds Pne-C-(25)(1), Pvt. Ltd. 288, Baliram Peth, Circle-1, Jalgaon Jalgaon-425001, Maharashtra Vs. Pan : Aadcr 7439 N अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanjay T. Tupe, Ca Department By : : Smt. Indira R. Adakil –Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-01-2026 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Separate Order(S) Both Dated 14.08.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay T. Tupe, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Indira R. Adakil –Addl. CIT

Section 145ASection 69

admit the additional evidence adduced before him by the assessee observing that none of the conditions required to admit additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 have been met by the assessee and the assessee has also failed to submit any explanation / clarification in support ... assessee failed to mention regarding the filing of additional evidences in Form 35 and any application for admission of the same under Rule 46A of the Act was not filed by the assessee. Undisputedly, despite number of opportunities granted, the assessee failed to comply with several notices issued

Raisoni Bagrecha Diamonds Private Limited, Jalgaon vs. Pne-C-(25)(1), Circle 1, Jalgaon

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

ITA 2548/PUN/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay T. Tupe, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Indira R. Adakil –Addl. CIT

Section 145ASection 69

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Ndw Development Corporation LLP, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3817/MUM/2025[2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2022-23 Income Tax Officer-20(2)(1), Ndw Development Corporation 304, Piramal Chambers, Llp, Parel, Vs. B 201-202, Doodh Wala Complex, Mumbai-400012. Chsl, Belashis Road, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008. Pan : Aapfn4779C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue By : Shri Inder Solanki, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Inder Solanki, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 694Section 69A

details of individual accounts being regrouped were submitted before the ld CIT(A) by way of additional evidence under Rule 46A and the assessee sought permission of the Ld.CIT(A) to admit the additional evidences so submitted. It was submitted that the total amount regrouped from “unsecured loans” to “other ... terms of loan account confirmations, copy of income tax returns, audited financial statements and supporting ledgers for subsequent repayment and an application under Rule 46A was moved before him. 6. The additional evidences so sought to be submitted by the assessee were sent

Sayed Mohammad Azam Naqvi, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, Range-4(4), Lucknow

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

ITA 643/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Sayed Mohammad Azam Naqvi V. The Income Tax Officer E-2824, Rajaji Puram Range 4(4) Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Ahbpn4634P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rohit Bhalla, C.A. Respondent By: Smt. Sonal Singh, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Bhalla, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Sonal Singh, D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 44ASection 69A

erred both on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal without considering the additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, by neither admitting nor rejecting the additional evidence filed, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 6. That ... from the Ld. AO on the additional evidence furnished by the assessee, despite a specific request made in this regard, which is mandatory under Rule 46A(3). 7. That the order u/s 250 of the ITA, 1961 has been passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dtd 09.07.2025 without providing

Tafseer Ahmad, Lucknow vs. DDIT/ADIT(Intl Tax)Lkn, Lucknow

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

ITA 517/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

ACIT (ITAT Delhi): "Additions cannot be founded on presumptions when bank statements substantiate the transaction." 5. Failure to admit additional evidence under Rule 46A: The learned CIT(A) erred in refusing to admit crucial evidence ITA(IT) No.517/LKW/2025 Page 5 of 8 (medical records, remittance summaries) despite the Appellant establishing

Dharm Raj Kushwaha, Unnao vs. Income Tax Officer -2(4), Unnao

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

ITA 494/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2018-19 Dharm Raj Kushwaha V. The Income Tax Officer 2(4) 172, Saipur Sarauda Unnao Safpur Unnao (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bmepk6477L (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: None Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.05.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Business Correspondent Of State Bank Of India & Ran A Customer Service Point (Csp). The Assessee Had Not Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Withdrawals Of Rs.1,36,10,616/- From The Current Account Maintained With The State Bank Of India, Received An Amount Of Rs.11,550/- As ‘Commission/Brokerage’ & ‘Insurance Commission’ During The Year Under Consideration. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194H

failed to decide the appeal on its merits & has wrongly rejected the appeal under the garb of the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule, 1962. 6. Because on facts and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the impugned assessment order without considering

Indu Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Circle 19(1), Mumbai, DCIT-CPC

In the result, Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 715/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Indu Maheshwari Circle 19(1), Mumbai Shilpam, 20-A, Janpath Shyam Dcit-Cpc Nagar, Jaipur- 302019 Vs. Rajasthan (Pan: Abopm6419N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Atharv Mundra, Ca Revenue : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Addl/Jcit (A)-2, Bengaluru, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- 25/1071060919(1), Dated 10.12.2024 Passed Against The Intimation Issued By Centralized Processing Center, By Dcit, Bengaluru (Cpc), U/S. 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 13.03.2019 For Ay 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. In Law & In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 34,34,698/- Made By Ld. Ao Treating As Dividend U/S. 10 (34) Of It Act. However Appellant Earned Income From Mutual Fund Which Is Exempt U/S. 10(35) Of It Act. 2. In Law & In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The 2 Indu Maheshwari Ay 2017-18 Addition Of Rs. 3,79,894/- Made By Ld. Ao For Not Allowing Of Loss Of Capital Gain.

For Appellant: Shri Atharv Mundra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 115BSection 143(1)

documentary evidences about this dividend being earned from mutual funds only. These were furnished before the ld. CIT(A) by filing an application under Rule 46A of the Income-tax 3 Indu Maheshwari AY 2017-18 Rules, 1962 (the Rules). Details relating to dividend information sent by various mutual funds

Maharashtra Airport Development Company Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department, Delhi

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

ITA 1366/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarmaharashtra Airport Development Company World Trade Centre, Tower-1, 8Th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 ............... Appellant Pan: Aadcm9623M

For Appellant: Shri Rushab MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57

above stated findings, even the grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeal relating to Id. CIT(A) not fulfilling the conditions of Rule 46A of the Rules are rendered infructuous.” 13. Thus, having carefully perused the aforesaid decision, we are of the considered view that the issue raised

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut vs. Sunder Singh, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals are filed by revenue are dismissed

ITA 376/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

para of her report conveyed as under: "Now, during the course of appellate proceedings before your honor, the assessee has submit an application under Rule 46A of 1.T. Rules 1962 along with requisite details in support of the unsecured loans taken during the F.Y. 2012-13 relevant ... transaction, the confirmed copy of account of the lender, copy of bank statements and the copies of respective ITR's, with an application under Rule 46A of the 1.1. Act. 1962, has been submitted by the assessee along with submission." 6.3.1 During the year under consideration, the assessee company

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut vs. Sunder Singh, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals are filed by revenue are dismissed

ITA 369/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut vs. Sunder Singh, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals are filed by revenue are dismissed

ITA 368/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut vs. Sunder Singh, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals are filed by revenue are dismissed

ITA 367/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

Rohan Promotors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 21(3), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 4849/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

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

First Appellate Authority who on 09.01.2017 in turn rejected the appeal preferred by the assessee, dismissing the application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Hence the instant appeal before us. 3. None appears on behalf of the assessee at the time

M/S Rohan Promotors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 968/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

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

Rajendra Kumar Shet, Raichur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raichur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions

ITA 816/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 133Section 143(3)Section 69A

returns and revised turnover in the books of accounts. Since the ld. CIT–A was also confronted with the additional evidence under rule 46A of the Rules, he forwarded the same to the AO for submitting the remand report which was received on 4 November 2024. Accordingly he deleted