“rule 46A”

M/S Poddar Finin Consultancy P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-7(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1860/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Poddar Finin Consultancy बिधम/ Ito Ward Pvt. Ltd. Maharashtra-410206. Vs. 4A/B, Ground Floor, Tk Industries Estate, Sitaram Palturam Murai Marg, Mumbai- 400015. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcp3938D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 06.08.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1) The Assessment Order Passed By The Id. Assessing Officer (Ao) Is Invalid & Bad In Law. 2) (A) The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer

details that they would have filed before assessing officer. The acceptability of additional evidence is governed by prescribed rules and are contained in Rule 46A which reads as under: [Production of additional evidence before the [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] FAND Commissioner (Appeals)}. 46A. (1) The appellant shall not be entitled

Rashmi Ameya Developers Housing & Estate Realtors P. Ltd., Palghar vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Thane

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rashmi Ameya Developers Acit, Central Circle-3, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Road No. Housing & Estate Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Vs. D Ii, 01 02, Akanksha Commercial 16Z, Wagale Industrial Estate, Complex, Opp. Sajavat Complex, Thane-400 604. Achole Road, Nallasopara, Dist. Palghar-401 203. Pan No. Aaecr 8508 H Appellant Respondent

Income Tax return for assessment year 2016-17 12. The Ld. CIT(A) forwarded said additional evidence to the Assessing Officer in terms of rule 46A(3) of Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short ‘the Rules’) Rashmi Ameya Developers 23 ITA Nos. 1990/M/2020 & Ors. for his objection and comments. After

Mukesh Manuprasad Trivedi, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2, Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanita No 225/Mum/2020 (A.Ys: 2009-10)

bogus purchases and sundry creditors dealt on the transactions and the nature of the bogus purchases and called for report of the A.O under Rule 46A of I T Rules for admitting the additional evidence. ITA.no224 to 229/Mum/2020&1069/Mum/2020 Shri MukeshManuprasad Trivedi, Mumbai. The CIT(A) considered the submissions made ... bank statements reflecting the payment made to the purchase parties. The CIT(A) considering the additional evidence has relied on the provisions of Rule 46A of I T Rules and referred the additional evidences for comments of the A.O. Whereas, in the remand proceedings, the A.O has called

M/S Govindram & Co., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

attempt was made unsuccessfully to get it examined by the AO through Remand. However, by virtue of power entrusted in me by provisions of rule 46A(4), I proceed to examine the affidavit. The contention of the affidavit can be summarized as under. The contention of the affidavit

M/S Govindram & Co., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

attempt was made unsuccessfully to get it examined by the AO through Remand. However, by virtue of power entrusted in me by provisions of rule 46A(4), I proceed to examine the affidavit. The contention of the affidavit can be summarized as under. The contention of the affidavit

Vanita Ramchandra Saprecanada, Mumbai vs. CIT, Vashi

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

amount of Rs.36,89,969/-. The assessee has also submitted in Column No. 12 of the form 35 that documentary evidences in terms of Rule 46A were also filed. In this regard the assessee has filed copy of Income tax return for assessment year 2016-17 along with statement

Tech Mahindra Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Prashant Maharishiआअसं. 6573/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2012-13 ) Tech Mahindra Limited, Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacm-3484-F ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Acit, Cir. 2(3)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistri, Sr. Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Damor सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 20/12/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: 6573/Mum/2019 This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-6, Mumbai [In Short 'The Cit(A)’] Dated 04/09/2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Shri J.D.Mistri, Sr.Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset That The Assessee Has Raised Additional Grounds Of 2 Appeal Assailing Jurisdiction Assumed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act,1961 ( In Short 'The Act') & Validity Of The Order Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act. At This Stage He Would Be Confirning His Submissions On The Additional Grounds Raised.

verifying the authenticity of the chartered accountant's certificate, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected it on a highly technical ground of non- competence with rule 46A of the Rules. When it is not disputed that the amount of Rs.l,99,90,658/-, is the amount received from the Mexican customer

Nayankumar S Sonawane, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)- 48, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Passing The Order. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred On Facts, In Law & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Rejecting The Application Under Rule 46A For Admission Of Additional Evidence. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred On Facts, In Law & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Confirming Addition Of Rs.1,61,887/- As Unexplained Cash Credits U/S. 68 Of The Income Tax Act To The Returned Income. The Said Amount Represents The Additions On Account Of Cash Deposits With The B Ha Rat Co-Op. Bank Ltd. The Appellant Humbly Prays That The Said Addition Be Deleted. 4. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred On Facts, In Law & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Confirming Addition Of Rs.10,91,600/- As Unexplained Cash Credits U/S. 68 Of The Income Tax Act To The Returned Income. The Said Amount Represents The Additions On Account Of Cash Deposits Of Rs.6,71,600/- & Rs.4,20,000/- Credited To The Account Held With Hindustan Co-Op. Bank Ltd. The Appellant Humbly Prays That The Said Addition Be Deleted.

order. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts, in law and in the circumstances of the case in rejecting the application under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidence. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts, in law and in the circumstances of the case in confirming addition ... elapsed between non-compliance and whether any further opportunity was given or not. Learned CIT(A) expounded upon the language and expression used in Rule 46A and proceeded to reject the assessee’s request of filing additional evidence and upheld the Assessing Officer’s order. 5. Against this the assessee

DCIT - 11(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Toto India Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid findings

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

powers conferred on him u/r. 46A(4) of I T Rules, without giving an opportunity to the Assessing Officer within the meaning of provisions Rule 46A(3) of the said Rules? 1.4 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), having come ... basis of adjustment proposed by the TPO. 8. In appeal, the CIT(A) taking note of the manufacturing license dated 16th July 2014, under rule 46A(4) of the Rules, held that the assessee was in trading activity and not in manufacturing activity during the year. Accordingly

DCIT Circle-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bla Power Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

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

transaction and creditworthiness of the party are complied with by the assessee by admitting details which were additional evidence without calling for report Under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 from the AO, when these details were never filed before the AO in the assessment proceedings, thus violating ... provisions of Rule 46A? 5. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of Assessing Officer be restored 6. The appellant craves leave to amend, alter, delete or add grounds which may be necessary.” 2. All these grounds of appeal

DCIT, 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Ganpat Singhvi, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

assessee." 3. "On facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not calling for the "Contractual Documentation", under Rule 46A(4),that has been referred to by HSBC, Geneva, whereby, one Iraqi national has been stated as the Sole Beneficiary of Blueridge Investment Corporation ... remand report to the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts and the remand report admitted the additional evidence under Rule 46A held that in order to assess the asset/bank account held by a third party in the hands of the respondent assessee the department

ITO (It) 2 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Sandeep Dhirajlal Dhakan, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Ao Without Any Reasonable Cause & Despite Being Given Sufficient Opportunities?" (B) "Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Accepting Additional Evidence Is Not Correct As Per Judgment Of The Delhi High Court In Case Of M/S. Manish Build Well (P) Ltd. (204Taxmann 106(Delhi) 2. "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Addition U/S. 68 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Cannot Be Made In This Case, Because The Ao Has Not Made Addition U/S. 68, But Has Made The Addition As An Unexplained Investment Which Is Subject Matter Of Section 69 Of The I.T. Act, 1 961 3. "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Source Of Investment Amounting To Rs. 25.37 Crs. In M/S. Rajesh Exports Ltd. By The Assessee Lies In Dubai On 2 Shri Sandeep Dhirajlal Dhakan

appeal read as under :- 1. (a) "Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) violated Rule 46A(1) by accepting additional evidence in spite of the fact that the assessee did not produce details/ documents before AO without any reasonable cause

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax - 33 (1), Mumbai vs. Cnp Cotton, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit-33(1), M//S Cnp Cotton, Room No. 711, C-12, Pratyakshkar B/50, Cotton Exchange, Near Bhavan, B.K.C., Bandra, Cotton Green Railway Station, Vs. Mumbai-400051. Cotton Green (East), Mumbai-400033. Pan No. Aaifc 5376 P Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Sunil A. Umap, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr. Ankur Shah, Ar Date Of Hearing : 31/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2022

Assessing Officer for examination of those evidences or M/s CNP Cotton 16 cross-examination of witnesses of the assessee as required under rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in sort the rules). The evidences in support of entire chain of flow of money from “Ratnakar Bank ... assessee. No justifiable explanation has been provided by the assessee for flow of money described in flow chart before us. For ready reference the Rule 46A(3) of Rules is reproduced as under: “Rule 46A(3) of income tax rules. The [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals] [or, as the case

ITO (Intl. Tax)- Ward-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Philip Andrew Lobo, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm

circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in admitting the additional evidence during the course of appellate proceedings, in violation of Rule 46A of the 1.T. Rules 1962 without giving opportunity to the Assessing Officer for making submission in respect of additional evidence." 6. “Whether ... freshly filed by the assessee during the appellate proceedings without calling for the remand report from the A.O. and, therefore, there was violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. Further, it was submitted that the documents referred by CIT(A) were the documents and the remand report which

Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee appeal

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Breach Candy Vs. Dcit, Cc5(3) Swimming Bath Trust Room No. 1906, 19Th 66, Bhulabhai Desai Floor, Air India Bldg, Road, Breach Candy, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400026. Mumbai – 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb0133F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Rajeev Waglay Adv. Ar Respondent By : Shri.Dilip Kumar Shah & Shri.Mahesh Akhade. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 53, Mumbai Passed U/Sec144 R.W.S147 & 250 Of The Act (A.Y.2014-15) & U/Sec 143(3)R.W.S147 & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (A.Y.2015-16). Since The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical & Inter Connected, Hence Are Clubbed, Heard & Consolidated Order Is Passed.

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 IT. Rules, 1962) since they go to the root of the appeal and would further request your honour to consider the same