“ rule 46A ”

CIT v. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P.) Ltd.

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.

56 Taxmann.com 286 · 2015 · High Court

196

Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT

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.

231 ITR 1 · 1998 · High Court

186

CIT v. Manish Build Well (P) Ltd.

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).

16 Taxmann.com 27 · 2011 · High Court

120

216 Taxmann.com 171 · 2013 · High Court

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

103

CIT v. Virgin Securities & Credits (P) Ltd.

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.

332 ITR 396 · 2011 · High Court

CIT v. Manish Buildwell (P) Ltd.

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.

245 CTR 397 · 2011 · High Court

CIT v. Ranjit Kumar Choudhury

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.

288 ITR 179 · 2007 · High Court

ITA 2113/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Delhi vs. Three C Residency Private Limited, South Delhi

The appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwaldcit Vs. Three C Residency Private E-2, Ara Centre, Limited , C-23, Greater Jhandewalan Kailash Enclave, Part-1, Delhi – 110055 Delhi – 110048 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaect0622Q Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Rohit Kapoor, &For Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

Section 68 of the Act considering this to be unexplained and as the matter reach the stage of First Appeal, additional evidences application under Rule 46A was filed on which remand report was sought and the ld. AO had submitted that evidences were not filed in the assessment proceedings. However

Tejasvi Singh, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Amtek Transportation Systems Ltd, Haryana

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

ITA 1282/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Vs. Amtek Transportation Systems Ltd., Delhi. Begampur Khatoula, Gurgaon Khandsa 104, Gurgaon – 122 004 (Haryana). (Pan : Aahca5047K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Krishnan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Amit Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date Of Order : 05.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 24.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2021-22 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 7.86 Crore Made On Account Of Discrepancy Found In The Sales Turnover Reflected In Form 26As Vis-A-Vis Gross Sales Reported In The Profit & Loss Account By Accepting The Additional Evidence Furnished By The Assessee Without Appreciating The Fact The Assessee Has Been Provided Sufficient Opportunity During The Assessment Proceedings To Furnish The Details In This Regard.

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the additional evidence in disregard to the Rule 46A if the I.T. Rule, 1962 as the case of the company is not covered under any of the circumstances as enumerated in Rule 46A ... submissions of details and non-representation before the Assessing Officer and further he submitted that assessee has filed additional evidences as per Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules (for short ‘the Rules’). He further brought to our notice detailed submissions submitted before the ld. CIT (A) which are reproduced

ACIT-Circle-2(1)(1), Agra vs. Puneet Agarwal, Agra

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

ITA 338/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR

ITA 337/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

that the relevant grounds out of which Ground Nos.1 to 4 are technical and Ground Nos.7 & 11 relating to issue of additional evidences under Rule 46A and section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. On merits, he submitted that Ground Nos.5, 6, 8 9 & 10 are on merits. CO Nos.04 ... same cannot be substantiated. Further he submitted that the evidence/ documents submitted by the assessee during appellate proceedings are nothing but additional evidences under Rule 46A. These were not confronted or provided to the Assessing Officer. Further he submitted that ld. CIT (A) has not appreciated the fact that

ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Agra vs. Sh. Vishwambhar Dayal Agarwal, Agra

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR

ITA 336/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH ‘DB’: AGRA BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUNIL

ACIT-Circel-2(1)(1), Agra vs. Mayank Agrawal, Agra

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR

ITA 330/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Vishwambhar Dayal Agarwal, Agra vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle2(1)(1), Agra

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR

ITA 334/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Magadh Homiopathik Medical Collage and Hospital, Bihar Sharif vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Patna

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

notices issued and in Column 12 of Form No. 35, the assessee had not preferred to submit additional documentary evidence under Rule 46A, therefore, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 5. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal

Amtula Tasneem Heera Banu, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-10(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1960/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.M. Karunakaran, AdvFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 115BSection 144Section 148Section 271ASection 54Section 54FSection 69A

Ld.CIT(A), the assessee’s fresh claim (deduction u/s.54F) can’t be entertained since the assessee didn’t file any application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules‘) for admission of fresh evidences. Therefore, he rejected the claim made by the assessee ... total income with capital gains etc., but the Ld.CIT(A) on hyper/flimsical technical grounds has rejected the same. [i.e. failure to file application under Rule 46A, certified(CTC) of ITA Nos.1959 & 1960/Chny/2025 (AY 2018-19) Amtula Tasneen Heera Banu :: 5 :: sale of immovable property and CTC of documents to prove

Amtula Tasneem Heera Banu, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-10(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1959/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.M. Karunakaran, AdvFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 115BSection 144Section 148Section 271ASection 54Section 54FSection 69A

Viewmore Enclave Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward 9(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2106/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata03 Dec 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Viewmore Enclave Pvt. Ltd. C/O Subash Agarwal & Ito, Ward 9(1) Associates, Advocates, Siddha Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 5 Th Floor, Gibson,1, Gibson Lane, Suite P07, Chowringhee Square, Vs. 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcv9941M Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

Section 131Section 68

which were considered by the assessee as additional evidences. The learned CIT (A) noted that since the assessee has not moved any application under Rule 46A of the Rules, therefore, rejected these evidences. Viewmore Enclave Pvt. ltd.; A.Y. 2012-13 4.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials ... pointed out the any defects in the said documents. The learned CIT (A) did not even admit these evidences filed by the assessee under Rule 46A of the Rules, by stating that the assessee has not moved any application for admission of additional evidences, whereas as a matter of fact

Shankar, Patna vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 6 (1), Patna

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

ITA 159/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 250

being heard to the assessee and also grant an opportunity of representing the case and to be heard to the Ld. AO as per rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, if required, and thereafter pass an order in accordance with law. The assessee shall produce cash book, ledger

Liz Hemangbhai Bhatt, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(1)(2), Present Jao - the Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1377/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

ITA 1376/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

next Asst. Year 2011-12, assessee filed the Return of Income and various additional documents were filed before Ld. CIT(A) invoking Rule 46A of the ITAT Rules. 5. Considering the non-cooperation by the assessee and to meet the ends of justice, we deem it fit to impose cost

Liz Hemangbhai Bhatt, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(1)(2), Present Jao - the Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

ITA 1375/AHD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Liz Hemangbhai Bhatt, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(1)(2), Present Jao - the Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

ITA 1374/AHD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Liz Hemangbhai Bhatt, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(1)(2) Present Jao- the Dycit, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)