“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

Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (OSD) 10(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1019/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ld., V. Dcit (Osd)-10(3) 401-407, Nirman Vyapar Kendra Room No. 517, 4Th Floor Plot No. 10, Sector – 17 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400703 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaaca6783F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Shruti Agarwal Department By : Shri Mehul Jain

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 195Section 40

alter, and/or to amend above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 6. During appellate proceedings assessee filed additional evidences under Rule 46A of I.T. Rules and Ld.CIT(A) remitted the matter to Assessing Officer and Assessing Officer filed the report dated 24.10.2019. In the remand report Assessing Officer

The ITO-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. A B Color Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2928/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 3(1)(1) V. M/S. A.B. Color Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 666, 6Th Floor 901, Maker Chamber V Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Narimanpoint, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaaca3373K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Harsh KapadiaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145

correct in admitting additional evidence 9 M/s. A.B. Color Pvt. Ltd., submitted by assessee during appellate proceedings in violation of Rule-46A of the Income Tax Rules and further whether he was correct in adjudicating on the additional evidence provided without calling for remand report from the AO by giving ... opportunity under Rule 46A? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in not recognizing that the assessee had failed to explain how there was Cenvat Receivable for the related Previous Year

ACIT, CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. J Kumar Chirag Api Consortium, Mumbai

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

ITA 6220/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Us.

Section 143(3)Section 147

appeal before us. 5. The Revenue, inter alia, has raised a ground contending that learned CIT(A) has accepted additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, i.e., it is the contention of the revenue that the additional evidences have not been confronted with the Assessing Officer ... Since the Ld CIT(A) has violated Rule 46A, we deem it proper to restore all the issues to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudicating them afresh, after confronting additional evidences with the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by learned CIT(A) and restore

Neeraj Nath, Mumbai vs. ITO 28 (2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, ground nos

ITA 4210/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalsh. Neeraj Nath Plot No. 53, Sector-21, Nerul, Navi Mumbai-400706 Pan: Aabpn6775A ...... Appellant Vs. The Ito-28(2)(3), Room No. 331, 3Rd Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi Station Complex, Navi Mumbai-400703. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Rajesh Shah Respondent By : Sh. Indira Adakil, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/07/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Dated 13.05.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Grounds Of Appeal Tax Effect Relating To Each Ground Of Appeal (See Note Below) 1 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In 3,16,406 Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs. 10,44,245 Though

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Sh. Indira Adakil, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

that assessee furnished additional evidence by nature but did not made any request to add the same as additional evidences as required under the rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. Being aggrieved, the assessee and revenue filed appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, The Hon’ble ITAT vide order

Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 30(2)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 918/MUM/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh, Income Tax Officer 33, Ghanshyam Dube Chawl No. 2, Ward 30(2)(6), Deep Narayan Dube Road, Vs. Earlier Ward 24(2)(2), Pragatinagar, Dahisar (E), Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai-400068. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aizpp 6142 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Dipen Tanna, ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Smita Nair, DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

deciding afresh with the direction to the assessee to produce all the necessary evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) in terms of Rule 46A of the necessary evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) in terms of Rule 46A of the necessary evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) in terms ... Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The Ld. CIT(A) is accordingly tax Rules, 1962. The Ld. CIT(A) is accordingly directed to tax Rules, 1962. The Ld. CIT(A) is accordingly decide the issue in dispute decide the issue in dispute after taking into consideration, the after

Income Tax Officer 15(3)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S.Sunshakti Oil Refinery Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 6006/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm M/S Sunshakti Oil Refinery Income Tax Officer, Private Limited Ward 15(3)(4) Room No. 15B, D–46, S–11, Mg Complex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road, Amarjyot Chs, Sector–14, Mumbai-400 020 Vashi, Navi Mumbai (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aapcs2034N Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.07.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 14Section 68

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in admitting the additional evidences without satisfying the condition laid down the Rule 46A and in particulars sub Rule(1), more so when the assessee did not prove that it was prevented from sufficient cause from furnishing

Smt. Hemavathi, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 40/BANG/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

For Respondent: Shri Pranav Krishna

Section 153Section 153CSection 234Section 250

case. Page 3 of 5 9. The learned CIT [A] erred in passing the appellate order dated 01/12/2020 without admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income tax Rules, 1962 filed on 06/06/2018 in support of the Appellant's case and thereby passed a perverse orde under the facts ... Ld.AR submitted that, nothing has been expressed on the legal issue challenged by assessee. Further, the Ld.AR filed before us, an application under Rule 46A, wherein, copy of the ledger account demonstrating payments made to Shri Ramdas from the group concerns of assessee has been filed. The Ld.AR submitted that

DCIT Cir -4(2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Goddress Pharmaceuticals P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1835/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm M/S. Goddress The Dcit Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. Cir 4(2)(1) Unit No. 304, A-Wing, Room No. 642, Western Edge, 6Th Floor, Near Western Express Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Highway, M.K. Road, Borivali (East), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 066 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aadcg6434C Assessee By : Shri. Subodh Ratnaparkhi, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Sonia Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.06.2022

For Appellant: Shri. Subodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Sonia Kumar, DR

Section 133Section 143Section 69A

unaccounted cash deposits u/s 69A without providing reasonable opportunity to AO to verify the additional documents/evidences produced by the assessee in accordance with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules and deciding the issue in favour of assessee. 4. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground

Dy CIT-Circle-22(1), Mumbai vs. Mr Jamil Ahmed Quireshi, Mumbai

ITA 1202/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Circle – 22(1), Vs. Mr. Jamil Ahmed Room No. 322, 3Rd Floor, Qureshi Piramal Chambers, Lal 102, Emerland Baug, Parel, Apartment, Near Dadar Mumbai-400012. Shakari Bank, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400055. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpq1063C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.N.Kabra.Dr Respondent By : Shri Dhaval Jariwala.Ar Date Of Hearing 23.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -32 Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Kabra.DRFor Respondent: Shri Dhaval Jariwala.AR

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69C

granted relief considering the fact that the addition was made without any corroborative evidence. The CIT(A) has admitted the additional evidence under Rule 46A of I T rules and called for the remand report. The CIT(A) considered the facts, remand report and findings ... additional evidence u/s. 46A of the I.T. Rules was submitted vide letter dated 30.07.2014 as under: "Sub: Application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules - Shri Jamil Ahmed Qureshi - PAN - AABPQ1063C Under instruction of our above named client we submit as under

Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 852/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar S. K, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

submission of 100 percent invoices, and by the CIT(A) for non-satisfaction of the conditions as laid out in Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules"); - Rs 5,438,094 - held to be capital expenditure which is disallowed net of depreciation ... which the AO disallowed for want of bills, the assessee submitted the bills before the CIT(Appeals) in the form of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules and prayed for admission of the same. However, the CIT(A) rejected the additional evidence on the ground that

Joint Commisioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Texas Instruments India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 831/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar S. K, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

Teksons P. Ltd, Thane vs. DCIT 5(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3217/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Us, The Preliminary Ground Raised Is That There Is A Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice Committed By The Ld. Cit(A) While Dismissing The Appeal Of 2 M/S. Teksons Pvt. Ltd.

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

proves that the additional evidences were initially admitted by the ld. CIT(A) and forwarded to the ld. AO in terms of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules and remand report called thereon. We find that the ld. AO in the remand report had recommended the admission

DCIT Central Circle-3(1), Mumbai vs. Wind World India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1910/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

when such evidence was not produced before the AO during the assessment and remand proceedings and therefore, the relief allowed is in violation of rule 46A of the IT rules, 1962 2. whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) was justified