“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

ACIT, Circle-3, Noida vs. Uday Veer Singh, Noida

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3167/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi10 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

Section 201Section 40

accepting additional evidence during appellate proceedings without giving opportunity to the A.O. to rebut on the same as per the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 2. That the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition made

Sharanam Corporate Housing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 23(1), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 7467/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi06 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Section 68

facts of the case is not justified in law and facts and circumstances of the case in not admitting the additional evidence filed under rule 46A during the course of appellate proceedings which was very vital evidence to decide the appeal on the merits of the case. Sharanam Corporate Housing

Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Smt R Meena, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 722/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 Smt. R. Meena, No. 13, 1St Main Road, The Income-Tax Officer, Ankappa Reddy Layout, Ward 4 (2)(1), Kaggadasapura, Bangalore. C V Raman Nagar, Vs. Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Agrpm0228K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sankarganesh K, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 23-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-01-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Revenue Against Order Dated 28.02.2020 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts Of The Case & As Per Law, The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Delete The Addition Of Rs. 40 Lakhs Made On The Basis Of Statement Recorded Of Husband Of Assessee Who Offered An Additional Income On Account Of Inflated Expenses Found During The Course Of Survey Proceedings. 2. On The Facts Of The Case & As Per Law, The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Delete The Addition Made On Account Of Payment Reduced In Cash Book At Rs.3,41,918/-, Cash Expenses Of Rs. 3 Lakhs Without Calling For Report From The Ao & Accepting The Additional Evidence & Explanation Submitted By The Assessee In Contravention Of The Rule 46A.

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K, JCIT (DR)

Section 133ASection 148Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 69B

lakhs without calling for report from the AO and accepting the additional evidence and explanation submitted by the assessee in contravention of the Rule 46A. Page 2 of 9 3. On the facts of the case and as per law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in directing to delete ... without calling the report from the AO and accepting the additional evidence and explanation submitted by the assessee in contravention of the Rule 46A.” 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: The assessee is a proprietrix of M/s. Aishwarya Enterprises. For the year under consideration, there

Smt.Snehalatha Surana, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 890/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

Section 133Section 40A(3)Section 41Section 41(1)

However, the Ld. CIT(A) refused to admit the additional evidences on the reasoning that the assessee did not fulfil the conditions prescribed under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. Accordingly, he confirmed the above said addition. 5. Before us, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee, in fact, requested

Fakruddin Ali Ahmed, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 1(4), Gurgaon

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations recorded hereinabove

ITA 4665/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Sh. Ravish Sood(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Fakruddin Ali Ahmed Ito H. No.1495-C, 2Nd Floor, Vs Ward- 1 (4) Secotr-15, Part-2, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan No. Ahcpa1857C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 144

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. G. S. PANNU, PRESIDENT AND SH. RAVISH

Sohiab, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 63(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 3863/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69C

which are as under:- “4. Application for admission of Additional Evidence During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant filed an application under Rule 46A for admission of Additional Evidence detailed as under:- Required information and duly falls under Rule 46A. Hence, it is requested to kindly accept the additional

DCIT, Circle- 12(1), New Delhi vs. Indo Rama Industries Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is

ITA 6708/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr.DR

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 32

assessment proceedings, then justify the reason for not taking the above facts Into cognizance. 5. Further, the ld. AR also submitted following documents under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962: 1. Mechanical completion certificate: 2. RG-I Register: 3. Copy of excise return (E.R.-l): 4. Copy

Pushpanjali Buildwell (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 20(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 6967/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. K. Narasimha Chary

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also erred both in law and on facts in not admitting the additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1961. 5. That both the authorities below have framed the impugned order without granting sufficient proper opportunity ... rival submissions and perused the material on record. In the present ground, assessee is aggrieved by the non-admission of the additional evidence under Rule 46A by Ld. CIT(A). We find that Ld. CIT(A) had called for remand reports from the AO but the same were not considered

Metalsa India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 449/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

appellant 5 agitated the action of TPO before CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the appellant sought to filed certain additional evidences under Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962 in form of email correspondences with the parent AE pertaining to rendering of IGS services to which

DCIT, Cirlce- 1(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Bombardier (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6274/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarasstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri F.R. Meena, Sr. DR

circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting the additional evidence filed by the assessee in contravention of Rule 46A 1.3 That in the facts and in circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in reducing the attribution

Seema Singhal, Hapur vs. ITO, Ward- 3(5), Hapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2441/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Seema Singhal, Hapur Vs. Ito C/O. Pradeep & Co., Ward – 3(5) 7, Navyug Market, Hapur Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201 001 Pan : Awpps 0757 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Satyajeet Goel, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.11.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

erred in law as she has omitted to adjudicate the crucial additional evidences submitted in accordance with provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. (5) That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding the findings stated ... land to be a residential property however it is in disregard to a fact presented through additional evidence filed in accordance with rule 46A which was a crucial evidence for determining the status of the land to be an agricultural land. (6) That the appellant craves leave to add / alter

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sh. Subash Dabas, New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the

ITA 6701/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 127Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 194CSection 2(22)(e)Section 68Section 69

receipts from co-operative housing societies as the additional evidence submitted by the appellant do no confirm to the conditions laid down in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting ... facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law in admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 as the assessee has failed to satisfy any of the conditions laid down in the above mentioned rule for admittance of additional

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sh. Subash Dabas, New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the

ITA 6700/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 127Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 194CSection 2(22)(e)Section 68Section 69

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Subash Dabas, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 2399/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 68Section 69

assessee at Rs.19,19,39,700/-. 9. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee made elaborate submissions and filed an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short ‘the Rules) for admission of certain additional evidences. The Ld. CIT(A) forwarded the written submissions and additional ... assessment order, written submissions of the appellant, remand report of the Assessing Officer, rejoinder of the appellant and also the additional evidences filed under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 during the course of appellate proceedings. The impugned addition was made by the Assessing Officer on the ground

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 9, New Delhi vs. Vimal Moulders India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3122/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhva, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Munesh Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 269SSection 68

assessee at Rs.14,39,65,159/-. 4. Before CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed submissions with request to admit certain additional evidences under Rule 46A. It was argued that these evidences which go to the root of the matter could not be filed due to insufficient time given

Regus Gurgaon Metropolitan Business Centre Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Gurugram

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5357/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 234ASection 271Section 92C

form of rent and depreciation. The Ld. CIT(A) considered this information as additional evidence and in absence of any application in terms of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short ‘the Rules’) by the assessee for admitting those evidences, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the rejection

Regus Gurgaon Metropolitan Business Centre Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Gurugram

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5356/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 234ASection 271Section 92C

Kiran Sales Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 14(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 8280/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: The Itat I.E. 20.02.2021; 18.05.2021; 22.07.2021 & Now On 18.10.2021 The Assessee Has Repeatedly Remained Unrepresented However, Considering The Material On Record It Was Submitted By The Ld. Sr. Dr That The Appeal Of The Assessee Could Be Decided On The Basis Of Material Available On Record.

Section 68

transaction consistently could not be proved by the assessee. Referring to the impugned order it was his submission that fresh evidences relying upon Rule 46A of the IT Rules as desired by the assessee were entertained by the Commissioner (Appeals) and wherein only affidavit of Shri Suraj Pal Bhatia explaining ... been preferred, this submission is considered while deciding the issue involved. 4.3 The appellant vide letter dated 27.02.2019 submitted additional evidence as per Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules as follows: “Most respectfully it is submitted that the assessee was assessed u/s 143(3) by the Ld. AO Ward

Labh Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward -02, Panipat

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

ITA 4037/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Somil AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 69A

account of unexplained cash deposits. The 3 ITA.No.4037/Del./2019 Shri Labh Singh, Panipat. additional evidence filed under Rule 46A of the IT Rules has been admitted as he had reasonable cause for not submitting the requisite documents during assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) has in his remand report

Ram Chand Baboo Mal & Co, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-49(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 4608/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 68

which are now being furnished before me. Since, the appellant's case does not fall under any of the circumstances as mentioned under Rule 46A(l)(a), (b), (c) and (d), therefore, the case laws relied upon by the applicant are not applicable on the facts of the present case ... Hence, I am of the considered view that the additional evidences filed by the appellant are not found to be admittable under Rule 46A. Therefore, the same are not admitted. 4.5 Since, the appellant failed to prove the genuineness of the sundry creditors as well as the loan creditors