“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

Amish Jayeshbhai Dadawala, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1) Previously Ward-1(1)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 1528/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Alok Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24BSection 250Section 69A

para B at page no. 22 of the order of the CIT(A) that the assessee has filed additional evidences in terms of Rule 46A, the same was not taken on record and without verification of the details, the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in respect of addition u/s.69A ... matter to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication on this issue on the basis of verification of the evidences filed under Rule 46A. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. 8. In the result, the appeal

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Golapar, Kathgodam vs. Ms Spp Polymer Limited, Paharganj, Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 162/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S Ssp Polymer Limited Of Income Tax, Aayakar Plot No. 1, Bsti Tante Wale, Bhawan, Chorgalia Road, Ram Kumar Marg, Motia Khan, Golapar, Kathgodam, Paharganj, Delhi, 110055 Haldwani Pan: Aaics9526Q

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

Department's Representative that, the Ld. CIT(A) committed error in admitting the evidences filed by the Assessee and in violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rule 1962, without directing the A.O. to examine the additional evidences filed during the course of the proceedings and without controverting the findings ... deserves to be set aside. 4. Per contra, the Ld. Assessee's Representative vehemently submitted that the Assessee has not filed any application under Rule 46A of the Rules, 1962 (‘Rules’ for short) and the Ld. CIT(A) himself directed the Assessee to produce certain documents for the purpose

Hiteshbhai Rameshbhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO Ward, 2, Bardoli

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

ITA 484/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Hiteshbhai Rameshbhai Patel Income Tax Officer, 466 Kanbivad, Goddha Mahuwa, Ward-2, Bardoli, Income Tax Taluka Valod, Dist. Surat 394630 Vs. Office, 2Nd Floor, Bsnl Gujarat, Building, Opp. Jalaram Temple, Station Road, Bardoli- 394601 Pan No. Avdpp 6788 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sakar Sharma, Ar Revenue By : Mr. J.K. Chandani, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Sakar Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Mr. J.K. Chandani, Sr-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 68

said addition, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). During the appellate proceedings, the assessee filed additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, including bank statements, copies of revenue records in Form No. 7/12 and 8A evidencing ownership of agricultural land

Sanjay Mukati, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer-2(1), Main Building Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 510/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleand**

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(5)

assessee. However, no petition has been filed by the assessee for admission of additional evidence justifying and explaining as to under which Clause of Rule 46A(1), the assessee's case is covered and as to why the additional evidence should be admitted. Therefore, I am of the considered view

Income Tax Officer, Ward 32(1), Kolkata vs. Satish Singh, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 449/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.449/Kol/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Years :2018-2019) Ito, Ward-32(1), Kolkata Vs Satish Singh, 5B/H/6, Shibtala Lane, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Dswps 6446 B (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) रधजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Sandip Sarkar, Jcit, Sr.Dr निर्धाररतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 01.01.2025For The Assessment Year2018-2019. 2. The Issue Raised In The Appeal Of Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) In Admitting The Additional Evidence Without Allowing Reasonable Opportunity To The Assessing Officer As Per Provisions Of Rule 46A Of It Rules, 1962 & Second Issue Is Against The Deletion Of Addition Of Rs.2,75,17,500/- As Made By The Ao U/S.40A(3) Of The Act In Respect Of Commission & Salary Paid By The Assessee During The Year. 3. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 16,36,550/-On 11/06/2019, The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 25.10.2019. Subsequently, Return Of The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Sarkar, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 40A(3)

against the order of ld. CIT(A) in admitting the additional evidence without allowing reasonable opportunity to the Assessing Officer as per provisions of Rule 46A of IT Rules, 1962 and second issue is against the deletion of addition of Rs.2,75,17,500/- as made by the AO u/s.40A ... recorded a categorical finding that all the evidence were before the AO and the AO misappreciated the facts, therefore, the provision of Rule 46A of IT Rules are not applicable. In view of the above, we uphold the order of the ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue

Wines 2000 and Company, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 27(3), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 1210/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, (Sr. DR)

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 69A

replies made during appeal proceedings. He has drawn attention to copies of written submission dated 13.5.2022,copy of application to file additional evidence under Rule 46A, copies of written submission dated 16.1.2023, 28.5.2024, additional grounds of appeal dated 30.4.2024,written submission dated 7.11.2024,13.1.2025.It was submitted that against the original

Jakson Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-4, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 5014/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Mrs. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Bhanu Mandal, SR. DR

Section 115JSection 147Section 15Section 250Section 37(1)Section 69CSection 80G

respectively by admitting additional evidences without giving an opportunity to the Assessing Officer under Rule 46A. (a) Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction us 80G of the Act in respect of the Anugrah Foundation despite noting that there were discrepancies in the receipt of donation. (5) 5. The appellant

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Jakson Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 5010/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Mrs. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Bhanu Mandal, SR. DR

Section 115JSection 147Section 15Section 250Section 37(1)Section 69CSection 80G

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Jakson Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 4987/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Mrs. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Bhanu Mandal, SR. DR

Section 115JSection 147Section 15Section 250Section 37(1)Section 69CSection 80G

Akshaya Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2605/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 68

assessee submitted that before the CIT(A), additional evidence in respect of all the issues under consideration were filed along with a petition under Rule 46A. The reason for not participating in the proceedings before Assessing Officer was manifold right from change in auditors, absence of key personnels owing ... authorities below. Though the assessee had not participated in the assessment proceedings, yet before the ld.CIT(A), they had filed the petition under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules along with additional evidence. 6. Rule 46A reads as follows: Production of additional evidence before the 83[Joint Commissioner] (Appeals

DCIT, Circle-21(1), New Delhi vs. Religare Securities Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 7556/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Dcit, M/S Religare Securities Ltd., Circle-21(1), 2Nd Floor, Room No. 202 B, Vs Rajlok Building, 24, 2Nd Floor, C.R. Building, I.P. Nehru Place, Estate, New Delhi-110019. New Delhi Pan- Aaacf1952D Revenue Assessee

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

proceeding and in lack of necessary details the AO has correctly disallowed the said amount of Rs. 10,30,65,230/-. Further, as per Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962, the assessee is not entitled to furnish any additional evidence before Ld. CIT(A) except in following circumstances ... evidence at the time of assessment proceedings Hence, additional evidence furnished by the assessee before your goodself are not liable to be admitted under Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962 Hence, the additional evidence submitted by the assessee should be rejected." ITA No.- 7556/Del/2018 Religare Securi

ITO, Ward 1, Dehradun vs. Ahustosh Gupta, Dehradun

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 198/DDN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun19 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Matta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Poonam Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144B

Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that the Assessee has produced fresh evidence/documents before the Ld. CIT(A) without filing an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, however, the Ld. CIT(A) has considered the documents produced by the Assessee for the first time before ... decided the Appeal in favour of the Assessee which is in violation of the conditions prescribed under Rule 46A of the Rules, thus sought for allowing the Appeal. 4. Per contra, the Ld. Assessee's Representative submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition on merits after convincing

Income Tax Officer, Ward23 Abohar, Abohar vs. Deepak Electronics, Jalalabad

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes as per the above directions

ITA 660/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 660/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Ward-23, Vs. Deepak Electronics, Lic 2Nd Abohar. Building Floor, Gaushala Road, Abohar, (Appellant) Distt. Fazilka. [Pan:-Aaefd5598C] (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 5

business transactions of the proprietorship concern. 5.1 The documentary evidences filed by way of additional evidences before the ld. first appellate authority under rule 46A has been sent to the AO against which remand report has been obtained and on the basis of remand report the ld. first appellate authority

Patel Sew Joint Venture, Telangana vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 884/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 80Section 801A(4)

grounds raised by the Revenue read as under : “1. The CIT(A) erred in law in not granting opportunity to the Assessing Officer under Rule 46A to examine the additional evidence submitted by 15 ITA No.884/Hyd/2025 & ITA 742/Hyd/2025 & C.O.No.17/Hyd/2025 Patel SEW Joint Venture the assessee with regards ... explain the discrepancy or mismatch between the income returned and the TDS claimed in the return of income, contrary to Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. She further submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in granting credit for TDS on mobilization advance without considering the provisions

ACIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad vs. Patel Sew Jointventure, Hyderabad

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 742/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 80Section 801A(4)

ITO., Ward 14(1), Hyderabad vs. Joshita Infra Developers LLP, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 672/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 44A

also deleted additions by admitting additional evidences filed by the assessee without affording an opportunity to the A.O. as mandatory under Rule 46A of I.T. Rules, 1962. Therefore, she submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) should be set aside and the addition made by the A.O. should

Joshita Infra Developers LLP, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-14(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1055/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 44A

Harish Banga, Hisar vs. Assessment Unit, New Delhi

In the result, both the substantial ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 4893/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2018-19 (Physical Hearing) Harish Banga, Assessment Unit, 264, Bank Colony, Hisar, Vs. Faceless Assessment Unit Haryana – 125001. Income Tax Department, Pan – Abqpb 8845 F New Delhi-110001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri H.K. Batra, Ca & Shri Naman Chawla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12 .2025 O R D E R Per : Pawan Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit (A) Dated 08.07.2025 Vide Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri H.K. Batra, CA &For Respondent: Shri Virender Kumar Singh, SR. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 56Section 57

Suman Devi, which were not available during assessment proceedings due to practical difficulties. 4.2 The Ld. CIT(A) failed to exercise powers under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, to admit additional evidence, which was crucial for proving the identity and genuineness of the commission payments

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Noida vs. Raghav Bahl, Noida

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1640/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

support the computation of loss under the 'capital gains', claimed in the return of income, and made an application to the CIT(A) under rule 46A for admission of the additional evidence-refer page nos 48 to 310 of the paper book. 1.6 The said additional evidence have been forwarded

DCIT Central Circle-1, Noida vs. Raghav Bahl, Noida

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1639/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250