“rule 46A”

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sukhna Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Ground challenging the alleged admission of additional evidence by the Ld. C.I.T(A) without giving opportunity to the Ld. A.O in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 – challenged by the Department in the cases of Angel Cement Pvt. Ltd. (A.Y. 2012-13), Delight Resorts

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sukhna Steel Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Ground challenging the alleged admission of additional evidence by the Ld. C.I.T(A) without giving opportunity to the Ld. A.O in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 – challenged by the Department in the cases of Angel Cement Pvt. Ltd. (A.Y. 2012-13), Delight Resorts

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sunlight Tour and Travels Pvt. Ltd., Sahibabad

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Ground challenging the alleged admission of additional evidence by the Ld. C.I.T(A) without giving opportunity to the Ld. A.O in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 – challenged by the Department in the cases of Angel Cement Pvt. Ltd. (A.Y. 2012-13), Delight Resorts

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sintex Consumers Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Ground challenging the alleged admission of additional evidence by the Ld. C.I.T(A) without giving opportunity to the Ld. A.O in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 – challenged by the Department in the cases of Angel Cement Pvt. Ltd. (A.Y. 2012-13), Delight Resorts

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Supreme Placement Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Ground challenging the alleged admission of additional evidence by the Ld. C.I.T(A) without giving opportunity to the Ld. A.O in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 – challenged by the Department in the cases of Angel Cement Pvt. Ltd. (A.Y. 2012-13), Delight Resorts

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Angel Cement Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Ground challenging the alleged admission of additional evidence by the Ld. C.I.T(A) without giving opportunity to the Ld. A.O in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 – challenged by the Department in the cases of Angel Cement Pvt. Ltd. (A.Y. 2012-13), Delight Resorts

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Technico Industries Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Technico Industries Pvt. Ltd., Circle-25(1), 103, Pratap Bhawan, Cr Building, Ip Estate, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. Near Indian Express Building, New Delhi. Pan: Aaact4445P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aditya Kumar, Ca & Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Mrs Aashna Paul, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.03.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 31St March, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-9, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Sheet Metal Components & Tools & Dies. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29Th September, 2011 Declaring ‘Nil’ Income. The Said Return Was Revised On 14Th September, 2012 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.3,61,68,075/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao, On Perusal Of The Balance Sheet Filed By The Assessee, Noted That The Assessee Company Has Issued 14,72,000 Equity Shares At A Premium Of Rs.115. From The Various Details Furnished By The Assessee, The Ao Noted That The Assessee Has Issued Shares To The Following Persons/Parties:-

during the assessment proceedings but has been procured subsequently and it was accordingly requested to admit the same as an additional 9 evidence under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. In addition a copy of the annual accounts as at March 31, 2011 reflecting the amounts paid ... objectively by considering the entire gamut of facts surrounding the case. 17. The assessee also filed an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A in respect of unsecured loans obtained from parties including M/s ARG Auto Components Pvt. Ltd. It was submitted in the said application that

Rajan Govil, New Delhi vs. Act Circle-Int. Tax-1(3)(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

given to the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The Ld. AR further submitted that the CIT(A) also has ignored the application under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. AR submitted that the additional evidence may be admitted and the matter

ITO, Ward- 65(2), New Delhi vs. Partap Singh Solanki, New Delhi

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

sufficient cause from producing the evidences which he was called upon to produce by the assessing officer in contravention of the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules and thereby grossly erred in deleting the addition of Rs.5,25,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer ... crucial to the disposal of appeal without recording his satisfaction that the case of assessee falls in any of the situations stipulated in Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules. (iii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition

Htc India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

extraneous and irrelevant basis. 9. Ld. CIT-A has erred in rejecting the alternate analysis furnished during the course of appellate proceedings citing Rule 46A of the Rules. Without prejudice to the above, impugned order has also erred in arbitrarily selecting certain companies therefrom to arrive at final

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hermes India Retails & Distributors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

assessee had failed to demonstrate that its case was covered under any of the conditions mentioned in clause(a) to (d) of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating ... Learned CIT(A). Before us, the Learned Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has admitted additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short ‘the Rules’). According to him, the assessee appeared 11 times before the learned TPO during transfer pricing proceedings, which

Harish Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(3), Ghaziabad

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2010-11 Harish Kumar, Vs Ito, C/O Raman Sharma, Advocate, Ward-1(3), 117, Ff, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh. Pan: Bcepk4087J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Farath Khan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : .02.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28Th February, 2019 Of The Cit(A), Ghaziabad, Relating To Assessment Years 2010-11. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. Information Was Obtained By The Ao As Per Air Information That The Assessee Has Deposited An Amount Of Rs.17,57,500/- In The Savings Bank Account During F.Y. 2009-10. To Verify The Genuineness Of The Transaction, Verification Letters Dated 29Th April, 2016 & 20Th January, 2017 Were Issued To The Assessee At The Address Given By The Filer. Since There Was No Compliance To The Notice Issued By The Ao, He Reopened The Assessment Invoking The Provisions Of Section 147 Of The Act After Obtaining Necessary Approval U/S 151 From The Appropriate Authority & Statutory Notice U/S 148 Dated 24Th March, 2017 Was Issued To The Assessee On His Last Known Address. There Was No Compliance From The Side Of The Assessee Despite Number Of Opportunities Granted. Only On 26Th May, 2017 The Assessee Appeared & Sought Adjournment Which Was Duly Granted By The Ao. Since There Was Non-Appearance From The Side Of The Assessee Thereafter, The Ao Made Addition Of Rs.17,57,500/- To The Total Income Of The Assessee U/S 69 In The Ex Parte Order Passed By Him. Before The Cit(A), The Assessee Filed An Application Under Rule 46A For Admission Of Certain Additional Evidence. However, The Ld.Cit(A) Rejected The Additional Evidences Filed Before Him & Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee.

income of the assessee u/s 69 in the ex parte order passed by him. Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed an application under Rule 46A for admission of certain additional evidence. However, the ld.CIT(A) rejected the additional evidences filed before him and dismissed the appeal filed ... find, although the assessee filed certain additional evidences before the CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) rejected the admission of such additional evidence under Rule 46A and decided the issue against the assessee by sustaining the addition made by the AO. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel that

Ms. Meena Tewari, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri O.K. Kant & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

these two sets of matters also with similar directions. 5. With this view of the matter, we allow the request of the assessees under Rule 46A(1)(b) of the Income-tax Rules, set aside the impugned orders and remand the appeals to the file of CIT(A) to receive

Prabodh Kumar Tewari, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri O.K. Kant & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

these two sets of matters also with similar directions. 5. With this view of the matter, we allow the request of the assessees under Rule 46A(1)(b) of the Income-tax Rules, set aside the impugned orders and remand the appeals to the file of CIT(A) to receive

Surinder Singh Kalra, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2(3), Ghaziabad

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavadr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

which are relevant for determination of tax after affording indexation as available under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. 5. The provisions of Rule 46A are as under: “46A. (1) The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] [or, as the case ... Surinder Singh Kalra the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)] records in writing the reasons for its admission.” 6. On going through the Rule 46A(b) and see, we find that if the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing any evidence, the same can be admitted by examining

Ashok Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 24(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anil Chaturvedi

reproduced in the appellate order. The A.O. also filed remand report. The assessee filed rejoinder. The assessee requested that the additional evidence under Rule 46A may be admitted with regard to improvements made in the property and submitted documentary evidences in support of the same. The assessee explained that

Davindra Singh, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Meerut

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

that no reliance could be placed upon the same though the assessee filed copy of the sale deed but no application is filed under Rule 46A of IT Rules for admission of the additional evidences, therefore, in 5 ITA.No 3873/Del./2017 absence of any evidence on record to explain cash

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Raju Investments (P) Ltd., Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

share application money from non-descript companies. The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) was not correct in admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A without giving proper justification. The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) has not given adequate opportunity and totally ignored the remand report given

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Opus Projects Ltd., Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

account of excess rent u/s 40(A)(2)(a) of Income-tax Act, 1961 by admitting fresh evidence without following mandatory procedure under Rule 46A. In view of this, matter had to be restored to Assessing Officer to examine afresh. 4. On facts and in circumstances of case ... admitting fresh explanation of assessee without referring to AO for verification which is in violation of provisions of sub rule (3) of rule 46A. v. On facts and in circumstances of case, learned CIT – A has erred in law and on facts in deleting disallowance u/s 14 A read with

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Opus Projects Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

account of excess rent u/s 40(A)(2)(a) of Income-tax Act, 1961 by admitting fresh evidence without following mandatory procedure under Rule 46A. In view of this, matter had to be restored to Assessing Officer to examine afresh. 4. On facts and in circumstances of case ... admitting fresh explanation of assessee without referring to AO for verification which is in violation of provisions of sub rule (3) of rule 46A. v. On facts and in circumstances of case, learned CIT – A has erred in law and on facts in deleting disallowance u/s 14 A read with