← All Phrases

“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
85
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
58
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
55
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

Income Tax Officer, Dindigul vs. Krishnasamy Karthikeyan, Dindigul

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2959/CHNY/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

For Appellant: Mr.Krishnasamy KarthikeyanFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 148Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

that the Ld.CIT(A) has Krishnasamy Karthikeyan :: 8 :: called for and has elicited information, documents, etc., which if the assessee adduced can’t attract Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and therefore, such contention/ground of the Revenue is rejected. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Blend Financial Services Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the R

ITA 8088/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Account Member) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari (SR. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40A(2)(b)

opportunity of being heard, thereby the Assessing Officer an opportunity of being heard, thereby the Assessing Officer an opportunity of being heard, thereby violating Rule 46A of the I violating Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules. On the other hand, tax Rules. On the other hand, the learned counsel ... contention of the learned Departmental Representative regarding contention of the learned Departmental Representative regarding contention of the learned Departmental Representative regarding violation of Rule 46A is not borne out from the record. The violation of Rule 46A is not borne out from the record. The violation of Rule 46A

ITO Ward-53(3), New Delhi vs. Anju Madhan, New Delhi

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

ITA 9321/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 53ASection 54

Further, Revenue filed additional grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in violating Rule 46A of Income Tax as no remand report was called from 10 AO on additional evidence submitted by assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) which ... disposed off the appeal without giving proper opportunity to the Ld. AO. She submitted that thereby violated the Rule 46A of the ITAT Rules and submitted that no remand report was called from the Ld. AO and additional evidence 11 submitted by the assessee. In this regard, she supported

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd., Noida

Appeals are partly allowed in the foregoing terms

ITA 4925/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

This agreement bearing stamp paper no. 43318 has been submitted for the first time before me therefore it constitutes fresh evidence under Rule 46A and therefore it cannot be admitted at this stage. I have also checked the paper-book submitted before 4 | P a g e ITA Nos.3432

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd., Noida

ITA 4924/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

This agreement bearing stamp paper no. 43318 has been submitted for the first time before me therefore it constitutes fresh evidence under Rule 46A and therefore it cannot be admitted at this stage. I have also checked the paper-book submitted before the AO vide letter dated 5.10.2010, this particular

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd., Noida

Appeals are partly allowed in the foregoing terms

ITA 4923/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

This agreement bearing stamp paper no. 43318 has been submitted for the first time before me therefore it constitutes fresh evidence under Rule 46A and therefore it cannot be admitted at this stage. I have also checked the paper-book submitted before 4 | P a g e ITA Nos.3432

Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

Appeals are partly allowed in the foregoing terms

ITA 3434/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

This agreement bearing stamp paper no. 43318 has been submitted for the first time before me therefore it constitutes fresh evidence under Rule 46A and therefore it cannot be admitted at this stage. I have also checked the paper-book submitted before 4 | P a g e ITA Nos.3432

Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

Appeals are partly allowed in the foregoing terms

ITA 3433/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

This agreement bearing stamp paper no. 43318 has been submitted for the first time before me therefore it constitutes fresh evidence under Rule 46A and therefore it cannot be admitted at this stage. I have also checked the paper-book submitted before 4 | P a g e ITA Nos.3432

Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

Appeals are partly allowed in the foregoing terms

ITA 3432/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

This agreement bearing stamp paper no. 43318 has been submitted for the first time before me therefore it constitutes fresh evidence under Rule 46A and therefore it cannot be admitted at this stage. I have also checked the paper-book submitted before 4 | P a g e ITA Nos.3432

Vsc Finance Pvt. Ltd., Bilaspur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as per above terms

ITA 38/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.38/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Vsc Finance Private Limited C Block, Siyaram Apartment, Mungeli Road, Mangla Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Aabcv4247Q

For Appellant: S/shri G.S. Agrawal &For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

opportunity may be provided so that these additional evidences may be addressed and adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC in terms with Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, 1962 through remand report from the A.O in the interest of justice. He further submitted that these additional evidences ... justice, these additional evidences are admitted and remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC with a direction to comply with Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, 1962 while calling for a remand report from the A.O and thereafter, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall adjudicate

Arun Kumar Yadav, Bilaspur vs. Au/NFAC, NFAC

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

ITA 778/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.778/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Arun Kumar Yadav Hn. 38/740, Behind Kediya House, Keshav Murra Batta Road, Bilaspur, Hemu Nagar, Towra, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Alspy0289J

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

referring to Para 5.2 of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, certain additional evidences were admitted by the said authority without complying Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, 1962. The relevant extract of the said para reads as follows: “5.2……………..The appellant submitted a copy of ledger ... providing opportunity to the A.O, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had simply relied on these documents and had adjudicated the matter in violation of Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, 1962. 7. Having heard the submissions of the parties herein and on careful consideration of the facts on records

Income Tax Officer, Ward -2, Wardha vs. Padmakar Krushnaji Warbhe, Hinganghat

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 377/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 40A(3)

assessment order. (iii) The Ld CIT(A) has erred in admitting additional evidence during appellate proceedings without following the due procedure laid down in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules 1962. (iv) Any other ground that may be raised at the time of hearing' Rival submissions of both

Anuj Gupta, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Fbd, Faridabad, Haryana

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7253/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7253/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2017-18) Anuj Gupta, 2337, Near Old Capital Bus Stand, Ballabgarh, Faridabad, Haryana 121004 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aibpg-7308-J बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Cgo Complex, New Industrial Township 4, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Faridabad, Haryana 121001 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : S/Shri I.P Bansal, Sanjay Goyal & Vivek Bansal, Advocates (Through Vc) प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.10.2025, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri I.P Bansal Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That The Assessee Is A Proprietor Of M/S Gupta Electric Store & Is Engaged In Trading Of Electrical Goods. For The Assessment Year 2017-18, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 28.09.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 3,93,730/-. Based On Information With 2 Respect To Cash Deposits Of Rs. 11,80,000/- During The Demonetization Period (09.11.2016 To 31.12.2016) In His Bank Account With Vijaya Bank, The Assessment For Ay 2017-18 Was Reopened U/S.147 Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: S/Shri I.P Bansal, Sanjay Goyal & Vivek BansalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 44ASection 68

documentary evidences before the AO as sufficient opportunity was not provided to the assessee. The assessee filed additional evidences before the CIT(A) under Rule 46A, to substantiate that cash deposits in the bank were out of cash sales. However, the CIT(A) without admitting additional evidences dismissed appeal ... that the assessee has not filed documentary evidences to substantiate, cash deposits are from business receipts/cash sales. The assessee has filed additional evidences under Rule 46A before the CIT(A). The First Appellate Authority without admitting additional evidences, upheld the addition made by the AO. Considering entire facts

ACIT, Circle-1, Solapur vs. Yuvraj Patil and Company, Talsangi

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

ITA 2803/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2023-24 Acit, Circle – 1, Yuvraj Patil & Company Solapur Vs. Talsangi, Mangalwedha, Solapur – 413305 Pan: Aaafy4589Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sharad A Shah Department By : Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 10-03-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-03-2026

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl CIT DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194Q

without giving opportunity to the AO to examine the 4 additional evidences and provide a rebuttal on the same as mandated by rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules 1962. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred ... that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC without calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer has accepted the additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962 and deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer which is not correct. 7. We find some force

ACIT., Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Kvr Consultancy Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 212/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 251

ones which are not unfettered and circumscribed by the provisions of section 251 of the Act read with Rule 46A of I.T.Rules, 1962 and while factually differing, the Id. CIT(A) is duty bound to establish the factual matrix as per law ? 5. Whether the Id. CIT(A) erred ... accepting additional evidence filed by the assessee, deleted the addition without providing an opportunity to the A.O. contrary to Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules 1962. Therefore, the Ld. Sr. A.R. submitted that, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) should be set aside and the addition made

Pioneer Panel Products, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 3, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4866/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshpioneer Panel Products, Vs. Ito, C/O. Anil Jain, Dd & Co, 611, Ward-3, Surya Kiran Building, 19 Kg, Rohtak Marg, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaqfp2257C

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

facts and circumstances of the case and the provision of law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the application filed under rule 46A along with supporting documents. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provision

ACIT, Circle- 19(1), Delhi vs. Pnc Rajasthan Highways Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, relevant grounds of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3248/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deependra Mohan,CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 46ASection 56

account of difference in turnover which the assessee had received in FY 2017-18 and 2018-19 by accepting the additional evidence under Rule 46A by the Ld. CIT(A). We would like to bring the following facts to your honours kind consideration: -the assessee being an SPV follows Mercantile

Narendra Pal Singh, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2583/DEL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2583/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Narendra Pal Singh, Income Tax Officer, 3A, Divine Heritage Society, Vs. Cgo Complex, Kamla Nehru Gyan Khand Ii, Nagar Indirapuram,Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh Hapur Road,Ghaziabad, 201010. Uttar Pradesh 201005. Pan No.Avqpp2801H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 249(3)Section 250

order. 4.1 We hasten to add that in case the assessee does not produce good evidence in support of his claim, if required under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, then the Ld. CIT(A) would be free to confirm the additions made

Kuldeep, Hapur vs. ITO, Ward 3(4), Hapur

ITA 2963/DEL/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshkuldeep, Vs. Cit(A), Village Kastala, Kasmabad, Nfac, New Delhi Tehsil & District Hapur, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bumpk4317F Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/03/2026

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

assessee filed a written submission before the Learned CIT(A) together with additional evidences in terms of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The said written submission is reproduced in pages 4 and 5 of the order of the Learned CIT(A). The Learned CIT(A) also called

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabd, Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs. Hemantkumar Rajendrakumar Shah, Ahmedabad, Gujarat

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

ITA 1371/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw, CIT. DRFor Respondent: Ms Urvashi Shodhan, AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

bank statements or confirmation was furnished during the course of assessment proceedings. Further, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by violating Rule 46A of the IT Rules by admitting additional evidence ( confirmations, PANs, repayment details) during appellate proceedings without allowing the AO an opportunity to examine