“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

Baldev Singh S/O Sh. Jodha Singh, Dhuri vs. ITO, Ward (1), Malerkotla

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 498/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 498/Chd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Baldev Singh, Vs The Ito, S/O Shri Jodha Singh, Ward-1, Village-Ghanaur Kalan, Malerkotla. Po-Ghanaur Khurd, Dhuri. "ायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Efxps1227B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mandeep Singh Narike, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl.Cit Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Mandeep Singh Narike, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl.CIT Sr. DR

Section 144Section 69A

additional evidence by the appellant are very much relevant to explain the appellant's position/argument in this case, the same are hereby admitted under Rule 46A(1)(d) for reasons that the assessing officer had not afforded adequate opportunity to the appellant and had passed the assessment order ex-parte

Shub Conductors LLP, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Cir-7 Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4553/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4553/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 बनाम M/S Shub Conductors Llp Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Plot No.1107, Sector-17, Vs. Central Circle-7, Faridabad, Nit H.O., Delhi. Faridabad, Haryana. Pan No.Acufs9783Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250

back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee may submit any kind of evidence in his favour, even under Rule 46A, and the Ld. CIT(A) would examine the same and call for a remand report from the Ld. AO, if required

Arvind Saroha, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 65(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4463/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4463/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 बनाम Arvind Saroha, Income Tax Officer, A-10, Atlas Road, Prem Nagar, Vs. Ward 65(3), Sonipat, Haryana. New Delhi. Pan No.Arhps3946D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 68

order dated 19.12.2018 in an ex parte manner. Thereafter, the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) with fresh evidence which was filed under Rule 46A. However, the Ld. CIT(A) declined to admit the same and thereafter, proceeded ahead to confirm the action of the Ld. AO. 1.1 Further aggrieved

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Satara Circle, Satara vs. Kay Bouvet Engineering Limited, Satara

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and both the COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1392/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR and Manish M. Mehta

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 148

first time before the ld. CIT(A) and therefore, the same would fall in the category of additional evidences within the meaning of Rule 46A of the IT Rules. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting the additional ... evidences furnished by the assessee without recording a clear finding as to the circumstances as detailed in sub-rule (1) of Rule 46A under which it merited admission as additional evidence, thereby violating the mandate contained in sub-rule (2) of Rule 46A. 3. On the facts and circumstances

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Satara vs. Kay Bouvet Engineering Limited, Satara

ITA 1374/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar &

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 148

Rahul Nath, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-26(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7409/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Shri Saksham Garg and Ms. Ragini Handa, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

shares.6.4 The appellant has filed rejoinder on the remand report and submitted that additional evidences are furnished during the appellate proceedings as per Rule 46A as appellant was unable to produce the same before the AO due to premises was locked by the landlord due to non payment of rent ... dated 25th February, 2014. Upon settlement with the landlord, the deed was retrieved and submitted before the learned CIT(A) with an application under Rule 46A, which was accepted by him. The relevant deed is enclosed at pages 154 to 171 of the assessee's paper book. The assessee also

ACIT Circle-26(1), New Delhi vs. Rahul Nath, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7008/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

ITO, Ward- 18(1), New Delhi vs. Ncr Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 7122/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahayito, Ward 18(1), Vs. Ncr Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 225, C.R. Building, A-2/8, Ground Floor, I.P. Estate, New Delhi Safdarjung Enclave, African Avenue Road, New Delhi – 24 (Pan: Aaccn5816G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Sumit Singh, CA & Sh. Praveen Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)

account of difference in sales registered as per sale ledger and declared in profit and loss account by admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred the Rules). For this, the Revenue has raised the Ground No. 1 & 2 by stating that the assessee ... case did not fall in clause (a) to (d) of Rule 46A of the Rules. 3. We have heard the rival contentions on this issue and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the AO noted the sales at three locations i.e. NCR Vehicles Faridabad

Om Prakash Banwani, Gwalior vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Gwalior

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

ITA 206/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Om Parkash Banwani, Vs. Acit, Harkota Seer, Girwi Circle-1, Gwalior Naka, Ab Road, Gwalior, (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Abdpv8742J Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Before the ld CIT(A), the assessee furnished additional evidences together with the proper application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules for admission of additional evidences. The following documents were furnished as additional evidences by the assessee before

Laxman Bhau Pawale, at Post Pirangut Mukaiwadi Pune vs. ITO Ward 2.4 Range Code 53, Pune Swarget

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

ITA 1541/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16 Laxman Bhau Pawale Ito, Ward 2.4, Range At Post Mukaiwadi Code 53, Pune Vs. Pirangut Taluka Mulshi, Pune – 412115 Pan: Bzlpp3421M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dinesh Sudam Kudale Department By : Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Sudam KudaleFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

point no.-(i) to (xiv), grossly negligent behaviour of the appellant assessee during assessment proceedings before the AO, non-filing of application under Rule 46A of IT Rules before seeking to introduce such additional evidences and reliance placed on the Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Appellate authority ... NFAC should have been accepted by him instead of rejecting the same on technical grounds for non-filing of an application under Rule 46A. He submitted that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details before

Mitchell Wankhar, Shillong vs. ITO W-2, Shillong

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

ITA 275/GTY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10(26)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271ASection 4Section 44ASection 69A

heard to make any further submission he wants to make in support of the grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 shall also be followed and an opportunity of being heard may be provided to the Ld. AO, if required

Mitchell Wankhar, Shillong vs. ITO W-2, Shillong

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

ITA 274/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10(26)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271ASection 4Section 44ASection 69A

Anup Das, Guwahati vs. Assistant/ Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Guwahati

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

ITA 271/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 250Section 69A

heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 shall also be followed and an opportunity of being heard may be provided to the Ld. AO, if required

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Dimapur, Nagaland vs. Imkummongla Pongen, Shillong

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

ITA 156/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10(26)Section 148Section 250Section 69A

relying on/taking into account of the evidences/documents/submissions made by the assessee without giving the A.O. an opportunity to examine it in contravention of the Rule 46A of the IT Rules. 2. For that, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has also erred in facts by allowing the claim ... that its entire income exempt u/s 10(26) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without giving the Assessing Officer any opportunity to examine under Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, 1961 the evidences or documents produced by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. 3. The Appellant craves

Afsana Begum, Guwahati vs. ACIT Cir-1, Guwahati

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

ITA 113/GTY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 56

heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 shall ITA No.: 113/GTY/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Afsana Begum. also be followed and an opportunity of being heard

Income Tax Officer, 1(1)(3), Ahmedabad vs. Shweta Manish Jain, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1594/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None

Section 147Section 14ASection 69C

provider. The Ld. CIT(A) called for a remand report, wherein the Assessing Officer stated that the assessee had filed no additional evidence under Rule 46A. The assessee filed a ITO vs. Shweta Manish Jain Asst.Year –2018-19 - 3– detailed rejoinder along with ledger accounts, bank statements, GST returns, invoices

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12, Pune vs. Yantrik Engineering Private Limited, Pune

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

ITA 1283/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1283/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Respondent: Appellant by Shri Amit Bobde

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 37(1)(va)Section 43B

heard on the submission of additional evidences/grounds by the assessee during the appellate proceedings which is in violation of principles of natural justice and Rule 46A of the IT Rules. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (appeal) has erred in deleting the addition ... Additional Evidences submitted by the Assessee during the appellate proceedings in this regard, which is in violation of principles of natural justice and also Rule 46A of the IT Rules. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition

Sikha Rani De, Bankura vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Bankura

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

ITA 1750/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 250

Ct Educational Society, Jalandhar vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is Partly Allowed for

ITA 396/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ashray Sarna, CA(Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250

occasion to verify the same and now producing the same before is an additional evidence without submitting any application under rule 46A of the I.T.Rule 1962 cannot be accepted." In this regard it is stated that the copy of notices issued by Ld. AO dated 19.11.2018 and its reply dated

Harishchandrasinh Pratapsinh Parmar, Panchmahal vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Godhra, Ward Godhra

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

ITA 1494/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 69A

assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appellant's application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, for the admission of additional evidence. The additional evidence was crucial for substantiating the appellant's claims. By not admitting this ... notices could not be responded to, leading to the assessment order being passed almost ex parte. The assessee sought admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A and submitted that that the documents furnished at the appellate stage established the genuineness of the deposits. The CIT(A) examined the assessment record