← 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

Shankerraj Impex Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 23(1), Delhi

ITA 4104/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. J. P. Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 147

comments. Below is a reproduction of the relevant part of the remand report. “2. In this regard, it is submitted that as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules 1962, the additional evidence is not acceptable except in the following circumstances – where the AO has refused to admit evidence ... documents that they Shankarraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. have now filed as additional evidence. The appellant has not met any of the conditions specified in Rule 46A, as stated by the AO in his remand report. As per the record, the AO did not decline to accept the documents that

Shankarraj Impex Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward - 23(1), Delhi

ITA 4103/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. J. P. Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 147

comments. Below is a reproduction of the relevant part of the remand report. “2. In this regard, it is submitted that as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules 1962, the additional evidence is not acceptable except in the following circumstances – where the AO has refused to admit evidence ... documents that they Shankarraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. have now filed as additional evidence. The appellant has not met any of the conditions specified in Rule 46A, as stated by the AO in his remand report. As per the record, the AO did not decline to accept the documents that

Shankarraj Impex Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward - 23(1), Delhi

ITA 4102/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. J. P. Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 147

comments. Below is a reproduction of the relevant part of the remand report. “2. In this regard, it is submitted that as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules 1962, the additional evidence is not acceptable except in the following circumstances – where the AO has refused to admit evidence ... documents that they Shankarraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. have now filed as additional evidence. The appellant has not met any of the conditions specified in Rule 46A, as stated by the AO in his remand report. As per the record, the AO did not decline to accept the documents that

Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bilaspur vs. Baldev Prasad Patel, Mungli

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

ITA 646/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Raipur14 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.646/Rpr/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Sharma & Shri VivekFor Respondent: Ms. Manisha Kinnu, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 69A

relying upon new evidence and submission which were never produced before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings, thereby violating the mandatory provisions of Rule 46A(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 and principles of natural justice. 2. Any other ground to be adducted at the time of hearing ... without giving any opportunity to the AO, had deleted the addition by accepting certain evidences filed by the assessee in violation of Rule 46A(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (in short, IT Rules). She accordingly, 5 Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bilaspur Vs. Baldev Prasad Patel submitted that

ACIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi, C.R. Building vs. Aircom International India Pvt Ltd, Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3096/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Vs. M/S Aircom International India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1), M-12, Balrama House, New Delhi. Karampura Complex, Opp. Milan Cinema, Karam Pura West Delhi Delhi – 110 015. Pan: Aadca0915A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate; Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocate; & Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocate. Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2025 Order

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37(1)

ld.CIT(A) u/s 250(4) and (5) of the Act to submit that the CIT(A) has co-terminus powers and independent of the Rule 46A, the ld.CIT(A) can make inquiry and give factual findings. The ld. counsel has relied the following decisions:- (i) CIT vs. Kanpur Coal Syndicate ... therefore, if no evidence is filed at the appellate stage, the same is required to be 4 admitted only in accordance with the Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules. If the Revenue cannot establish that the assessee was supposed to rely these evidences only on the basis of crossing

Abuchi Infra Ventures Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Delhi

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

ITA 2712/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaabuchi Infra Ventures Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward 2 (3), Kh No.115, Village Alipur, Delhi. Delhi – 110 036. (Pan : Aacb5801K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Harshit Srivastav, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Order : 14.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 01.08.2023For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 On 07.11.2017 Declaring An Income Of Rs.1,27,520/-. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass & Accordingly, Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’)

For Appellant: Shri Harshit Srivastav, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69

addition of Rs.1,11,00,000/- made by the AO vide impugned assessment order dated 07.12.2019 in contravention of provisions laid down under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules 1962. The Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in making the best judgment assessment which is in contrary to the fact

DCIT, Circle 59(1), Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi vs. Ajay Jain, New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2179/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. Ajay Jain, Vikas Bhawan, D-206, Block-D, New Delhi. Vikas Bhawan, Ip Estate, New Delhi – 110 002. Pan: Acvpj4070A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Rano Jain, Advocate; Ms Mansi Jain, Ca; Shri Pranshu Singhal, Ca; & Shri Tanishq Ahuja, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2025 Order

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr.DR
Section 144

only ground of challenge of impugned order by the department is assertion that the CIT(A) has not followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 46A for admitting additional evidences. Ld. Counsel for assesse has submitted that no new or additional evidences were infact filed so there was no occasion ... file application under Rule 46A. The assessee had filed all the relevant documents before the Assessing Officer, therefore there was no need to file any additional evidence under Rule 46A. We are in agreement with ld. Counsel that written submissions filed before the CIT(A) is not additional evidence. Summary

Santosh Kumar, Supaul vs. ITO, Ward- 3 (4), Saharsa

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

ITA 294/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 147Section 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

DCIT(CC)-4(2), Mumbai vs. Ashish Mehdiratta, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3568/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 54

erred in allowing the claim based on allotment letter. The ld. DR also submitted that there is a violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 19621 since the CIT(A) has admitted certain additional documents filed by the assessee in order to give relief without calling

Anjani Kumar, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-6(5), Patna

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

ITA 201/PAT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

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

Kripa Shanker, Patna vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Patna

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

ITA 117/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 54

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. For statistical purposes, the appeal

Sonu Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle, 1, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 509/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

report 31 9 Application of assessee for AY2016-17 regarding additional evidence filed before CIT(A). 32 10 Application for admitting additional evidence under rule 46A 33-44 11 Reply of assessee for AY2018-19 regarding writ petitions filed. 45-46 12 Letter of CIT(A) AY2018-19 for calling

Sonu Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle, 1, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 508/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

Application of assessee for AY2016-17 regarding 32 9 additional evidence filed before CIT(A). 33-44 10 Application for admitting additional evidence under rule 46A 45-46 11 Reply of assessee for AY2018-19 regarding writ petitions filed. 47 12 Letter of CIT(A) AY2018-19 for calling

Sonu Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle, 1, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 507/JPR/2025[A.Y. 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

Application of assessee for AY2016-17 regarding 32 9 additional evidence filed before CIT(A). 33-44 10 Application for admitting additional evidence under rule 46A 45-46 11 Reply of assessee for AY2018-19 regarding writ petitions filed. 47 12 Letter of CIT(A) AY2018-19 for calling

Sonu Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle, 1, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 506/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

Application of assessee for AY2016-17 regarding 32 9 additional evidence filed before CIT(A). 33-44 10 Application for admitting additional evidence under rule 46A 45-46 11 Reply of assessee for AY2018-19 regarding writ petitions filed. 47 12 Letter of CIT(A) AY2018-19 for calling

Sonu Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle, 1, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 505/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

Application of assessee for AY2016-17 regarding 32 9 additional evidence filed before CIT(A). 33-44 10 Application for admitting additional evidence under rule 46A 45-46 11 Reply of assessee for AY2018-19 regarding writ petitions filed. 47 12 Letter of CIT(A) AY2018-19 for calling

Monika Jain, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1147/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 251

address from delhi to Jaipur Moreover, the Appeal was filed before CIT(A) and even application for admission of additional evidence was filed under rule 46A of Income tax Rules. The remand report in connection with the additional evidence was also received by the worthy CIT (A), NFAC 3. That ... heavily relied upon the following finding so recorded in the remand report already placed on record. Thus, when the assessee moved the petition under rule 46A filed all the additional evidence and having admitted the said additional evidence the report of the AO needs to be given the logical conclusion

ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Sikander Daredia, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 604/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.604/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2018-2019 The Asst. Commissioner Of Sikander Daredia, Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad – 500 014. Vs. Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Agtpd5466A (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By : Sri S. Rama Rao, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12.11.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

assessee filed it’s reply and explained the reasons for non-appearance before the Assessing Officer and also filed additional evidences under Rule 46A of I.T. Rules, 1962. The learned CIT(A) forwarded the additional evidences filed by the assessee to the Assessing Officer and called for a remand report

Asis Sarkar, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 50(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 588/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

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

Raju Mandol, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 43(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 271/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

without allowing the appellant any proper opportunity of being heard. 2. For that the appellant craves leave to produce additional evidences in terms of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules 1962. 3. For that the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is bad in law since ... 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