“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-3(1), Mumbai vs. Wind World India Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1354/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

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

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

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

ITA 1353/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

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

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

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

ITA 1352/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

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

ACIT 13 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Vega Chemicals Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 750/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit – 13(3)(2) Vs. M/S Vega Chemicals Room No. 229/2019, Pvt Ltd 2Nd Floor, Aayakar C-404, Gokuldham, Bhavan, Mk Road, Dindoshi Mumbai-400020. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400063 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecv1029M Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Aditya Ramchandra.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N.Kabra.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.06.2022 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)-21 Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Aditya Ramchandra.ARFor Respondent: Mr.S.N.Kabra.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

documents before the A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings. Thus, as discussed in the above paragraphs and in the Light of provision of Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962, the additional evidences produced by the Appellant are admitted 7. The CIT(A) find that the AO has admitted

ITO-12(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Grd Steelindustries Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1918/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ito-12(2)(3), M/S Grd Steel Industries Private Room No. 226, 2Nd Floor, Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Vs. 203, Tirupati Udyog, I B Patel Road, Mumbai-400020. Off W E Highway Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aaccn 8254 G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Haresh P. Shah, Ar Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Haresh P. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, DR

before the assessing officer. This observation takes care of clause (c) of sub observation takes care of clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 46A. The rule (1) of Rule 46A. The observation of the CIT (A) also takes care of sub observation of the CIT (A) also takes ... requirement of sub-rules (1) and (2) es (1) and (2) M/s GRD Steel Industries Limited M/s GRD Steel Industries Limited 10 of Rule 46A have been complied with. However, sub of Rule 46A have been complied with. However, sub-rule (3) which rule (3) which interdicts

Income Tax Officer Ward-3, Kalaburagi vs. Shri Tabrez Shakil Qureshi, Gulbarga

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1608/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sankarganesh K., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 142(1)Section 80I

that the matter ought to be remanded to the AO for his verification. 5. The ld. AR submitted that there is no violation of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules since the assessee has produced all the supporting evidence called for by the AO and the same were produced ... directed to delete the additions of Rs. 1,76,39,718/-.” 7. We also notice that there is no violation of Rule 46A with respect to evidence furnished by the assessee before the CIT(Appeals). The contention of the ld. DR that no remand report was called

M/S. Biocon Limited, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on the legal issue raised in ground no

ITA 1858/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 The Joint M/S. Biocon Ltd., Commissioner Of 20Th Km, Hosur Road, Income-Tax, Electronic City, Large Tax Payers Bangalore – 560 100. Unit [Ltu], Pan: Aaacb7461R Vs. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For A.Y. 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein Below Are Independent & Without Prejudice To The Other Grounds Preferred By The Appellant. 1. That On Facts & Circumstances Of The ' Case & In Law, The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals ["Cit(A)"] Dated March 28, 2018 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") For Ay 2010-11 To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Is Bad In Law & Facts & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Scope Of Re-Assessment Proceedings

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha

Section 147Section 250Section 35

That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in disregarding the additional evidence filed by the Appellant under Rule 46A of the Income-tax, Rules, 1962 ("the Rules") substantiating non realisation of sales proceeds on transfer of "development and commercialization rights" of Oral Insulin

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Akash Enterprises, Bangalore

ITA 663/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Akash Enterprises, The Assistant No. 366, 3Rd Floor, Commissioner Of Kmp Arcade, Income Tax, Matadahalli Ext., Circle – 6 (1) (1), Rt Nagar Main Road, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 032. Pan: Aalfa7883J Appellant Respondent & C.O.No. 01/Bang/2021 (In Ita No. 663/Bang/2020) (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Nulvi, Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Filed By Revenue & Assessee Against Order Dated 12.09.2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-13, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014- 15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: Revenue’S Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Cit (Appeals) Is Opposed To Law & The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 250

giving an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to verify the genuineness of the additional evidences submitted by the assessee as per the provisions of Rule 46A? 3. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is humbly prayed that the order

Smt Hiral Dhaval Kothari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD 30(1) (4), Mumbai

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

ITA 223/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Hiral Dhaval Kothari, Ito, Ward-30(1)(4), B-403, Sanskriti Building, Kautilya Bhavan, Kedermal Road, Malad (East) Vs. Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 097. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aumpk 5669 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Prateek Jha & Mr. Prayag Jha, Ars Revenue By : Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Prateek Jha &For Respondent: Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, DR

Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

than letter dated 23.11.2017. Now the appellant has submitted various evidences, which cannot be admitted at this stage in view of the provisions of Rule 46A. The case of the appellant doesn't fit with any of the exception clause of this Rule. The appellant has also not made

ITO 22(1)(6), Mumbai vs. Bhaskar Radheshyam Majumdar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1311/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhincome Tax Officer- Vs. Bhaskar Radheshyam 22(1)(6),104, 1St Floor, Majumdar, F-2, Harmony Piramal Chambers, Dr. E. Moses Road, Parel, Mumbai- 400012 Worli Naka, Mumbai - 400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No:Amppm5466M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: C.T. MathewsFor Respondent: Raman Jokhakar &

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69Section 69A

ground to reject additional evidences filed during the appellate proceedings to explain the source of investments if the same is in conformity with Rule 46A. 10. The AO in the remand report had also stated that he is not in a position to verify the authenticity of tax return filed ... regard, the ld. CIT(A) has also called a remand report from the A.O vide letter dated 23.04.2019 after admitting additional evidence as per Rule 46A of the I.T. Rule 1962. The copy of remand report was also given to the assessee. The assessee also explained that he has submitted

ITO - 21 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. Satishkumar Kundanmalji Porwal, Mumbai

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

ITA 3240/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awashty & Shri Amarjit Singhincome Tax Officer- Vs. Shri Satish Kumar 21(3)(2), R. No. 203, Kundanmalji Porwal 2Nd Floor, Piramal D-23, 1St Floor, Zia Chambers, Lalbaug, Masum Chawl, N.M. Mumbai – 400012 Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aadpp9461D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Hemant Kumar ChimanlalFor Respondent: None

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271

justified in admitting additional evidence and relying upon the same for deciding the appeal, without remanding the matter before the AO as required under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified

Mukesh Shivdas Sonar, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central-3, Thane

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 1806/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2014-15

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

ground No.1 raised by the assessee is challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in not admitting the additional evidences produced under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules in connection with applicability of provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in respect of advance given ... paper book filed before him. Apart from that, the assessee also furnished certain additional evidences before the ld. CIT(A) under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. These additional evidences were not admitted by the ld. CIT(A) and ultimately the ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition made

Mukesh Shivdas Sonar, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-3, Thane

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 1802/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2010-11

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

Santosh Dnyaneshwar Chavan, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO WD 22(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1061/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri B.N. RaoFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

Section 143Section 24Section 250Section 68

contention of the Assessing Officer. Further, the learned CIT(A), inter-alia, did not admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 in respect of confirmation from 85 persons from whom unsecured temporary interest-free advances were taken on the basis ... assessee in respect of interest free loans taken from 85 farmers, however, did not admit the additional evidence so produced by the assessee under Rule 46A. In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to remand this issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after appropriate examination

Sri. H.S. Ningaiah, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 33/BANG/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 153Section 153CSection 234Section 234ASection 250Section 69

facts and circumstances of the case. 8. 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 08/06/2018 in support of the Appellant's case and thereby passed a perverse order under

Shehla Akhtar Rangoonwala, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6538/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman ()

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 54

crores as income of the assessee. Further, according to the Ld.AR, the assessee, before the Ld.CIT(A) filed all the relevant evidences under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (herein after the Rules) to substantiate the fact of purchase of the property [Samundra Setu Co-operative Housing Society ... making the entire addition of Rs.2.35 crores. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee filed all the relevant evidences in respect of the transactions under Rule 46A of the Income- tax Rules, 1962. Ld.CIT(A), after considering the evidences in respect of purchase & sale of the house at Samundra Setu

Akhtar Zain Rangoonwala, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6537/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman ()

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 54

DCIT Circle-15 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Rankin Infrastructure Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Ground No. 2 and 3 raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7288/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle – 15(3)(1) V. M/S. Rankin Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 451, 4Th Floor Next To Classic Marble Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Subash Nagar Road, Bhandup (E) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai -400078 Pan: Aafcs5275B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal Department By : Shri T. Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar

Section 56(2)(viib)

erred in admitting additional evidence in the form of valuation report from Chartered Accountant when none of the exception clauses mentioned in Rule 46A is applicable in the case.” 3. “Without prejudice to ground (i) and (ii), on the facts and circumstance of the case ... relating to these grounds are, the assessee filed additional evidences before the Ld.CIT(A) with the application for admission of the same as per Rule 46A of I.T. Rules. Ld.CIT(A) called for the remand report and also forwarded the remand report to the assessee. Assessee also submitted detailed rebuttal

DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Motors Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, for assessment year 2013 – 14 of appeal of the AO as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7550/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

Section 143(3)

with Tata Motors Ltd. in respect of loan repayment to the assessee, to decide the issue of deduction of Doubtful Debts in violation of Rule 46A?" 5. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction of Rs.9 ... have admitted the above ground (iii) the admission of the additional evidences such as agreement with Tata Motors Limited is in violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules and (iv) on the merit the above claim is not allowable. ITA Nos. 7550/Mum/16, 2640 & 244/Mum/19 Tata Motors Finance

Jatan Securities Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT 14(2) (1), Mumbai

ITA 1828/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantआअसं. 1828/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2012-13) Jatan Securities Pvt. Ltd., 404, Laxmi Mall, Laxmi Industrial Estate, New Link Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai 400 053 Pan: Aaacj-2567-N ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 14(2)(1) Room No.432, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai- 400 020. अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Dr. P.Daniel ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri S.N.Kabra सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/04/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 11/04/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Dr. P.DanielFor Respondent: Shri S.N.Kabra

Section 68

rejecting the documents. Thereafter, during the first appellate proceedings, the assessee filed additional evidences along with an application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. A copy of the said application dated 14/12/2016 along with online acknowledgement for filing of said application ... back to the file of CIT(A) for denovo adjudication of appeal after considering assessee’s application for filing of additional evidence under of Rule 46A. The CIT(A) shall pass fresh order after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, in accordance with law. The impugned order