← 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

Anand Ashok Chandavarkar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 31 1 1 Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 3808/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankaranand Ashok Chandavarkar V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – C/O S.S. Tumkar, 202, Shreeji बनाम 31(1)(1), Room No. 203, 2Nd Darshan Chsl, Hanuman Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 Road, Ville Parle East, To C-43, G-Block, Bandra Mumbai – 400 057, Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharashtra (East), Mumbai – 400 051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Ablpc0382R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh & Ms. Shivali MhatreFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat (Sr. DR)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

unjustified. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in summarily rejecting the application made by the Appellant for admissions of additional evidences as per the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 without appreciating that the Appellant was prevented from sufficient cause from not providing the relevant documentary evidences during ... invalid notice. Besides, the ld.CIT(A) did not take proper cognizance of his request for admission of additional evidences in terms of Rule 46A. 5.1 Considering the entirety of the facts and the circumstances of the case and in the interest of principles of natural justice and fair play

DCIT, Int.Tax, Jaipur vs. Devidass Aswani, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeals of the Department are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 704/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in admitting the additional evidences filed by the assessee in contravention to rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules which mandates that no additional evidence shall be admitted by the CIT (Appeals) without providing opportunity to the AO to examine ... whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in admitting the additional evidences filed by the assessee in contravention to rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules which mandates that no additional evidence shall be admitted by the CIT (Appeals) without providing opportunity to the AO to examine

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Devidass Aswani, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeals of the Department are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 703/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in admitting the additional evidences filed by the assessee in contravention to rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules which mandates that no additional evidence shall be admitted by the CIT (Appeals) without providing opportunity to the AO to examine ... whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in admitting the additional evidences filed by the assessee in contravention to rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules which mandates that no additional evidence shall be admitted by the CIT (Appeals) without providing opportunity to the AO to examine

DCIT, Circle 4(2), New Delhi vs. Blue Jay Finlease Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4416/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Blue Jay Finlease Pvt. Ltd, Dcit, Circle-4(2), 26, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi Delhi-110001 Pan: Aaacb5215H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rajesh Bansal, Ca Department By Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

parties. Case file perused. 2. The Revenue raised the following substant grounds in the instant appeal: “1 Whether Ld. CIT(A) has violated the Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule and has erred in allowing the fresh evidences submitted by the appellant only during the appellate proceedings without affording ... detailed discussion. Learned departmental representative could hardly dispute that what all the Revenue pleads in its grounds is that the CIT(A) has violated Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 whilst admitting the assessee’s additional evidence for the first time in the lower appellate proceedings i.e. without

Prime Co Operative Bank Ltd, Surat vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 19/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.19/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Prime Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Vs. Acit, Khatodra, Ring Road, Surat – Circle-1(1)(1), 395002 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcp7117M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hiren Vepari, Ca Respondent By Shri Aashish Pophare, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2025

Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

only part details. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted complete details. However, no request was made for admission of the additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules. He exercised his power vested to him u/s 251(1)(a) of the Act and set aside the order

Anuja Rajesh Bajaj, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2240/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 68

assessee had made submissions before the AO during the course of remand proceedings. The petition for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of IT Rules, 1962, the details of additional evidence filed before FAA, the submission made before the AO during course of remand proceedings are placed on record

Bhavana Ritesh Shah, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5561/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Punit Jhabak, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Chandra, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 144BSection 147Section 250

appellate proceedings and thus he not being satisfied with the fresh evidence uploaded during the appellate proceedings without fulfilling the conditions prescribed under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, upheld the aforesaid addition by dismissing appeal of the assessee. 4. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar ... duly submitted the relevant documents before the Ld. Commissioner in the form of fresh evidence, but without making an appropriate application, as required under Rule 46A. However, it is also a fact that the issue relating to the credit entry of the aforesaid amount, specifically in the absence of relevant

DCIT, I.T.O. Delhi vs. Rathi Steel and Power Limited, Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2720/DEL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.2720/Del/2024, A.Y. 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Rathi Steel & Power Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-19(1), Chauhan Market, Room No. 221, 2Nd Floor, Madanpur Khadar, C. R. Building, I. P. Estate Near Shopping Complex, New Delhi Sarita Vihar, New Delhi-76 Pan: Aaacr1435K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Mayank Patawari, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am The Appeal Of The Revenue For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.03.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 68

time of assessment proceedings to further substantiate its claim. Hence, the supporting documents are being submitted before your Honors as additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules in order to prove the genuineness of the sales made by the assessee during the year Rathi Steel & Power ... time of assessment proceedings to further substantiate its claim, Howe, the supporting documents has been submitted by the appellant as additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules in order to prove the genuineness of the sales. Considering the same a remand report was called from

Vimalkumar Prakashchandra Jain, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1651/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Corporation. Therefore the addition made by the A.O. is not sustainable and requested to delete the same. The assessee also filed additional documents invoking Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules before Ld. CIT(A). However Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition on the basis that the creditworthiness of the creditors ... repaid through banking channels. Thus the addition made by the lower authorities are liable to be set-aside considering the additional documents filed invoking Rule 46A. 6. Ld. Sr. D.R. appearing for the Revenue supported the assessment order being an exparte and accepted that the additional documents filed before

ITO-28(1), Civic Center New Delhi vs. Arpitam Builders LLP, South Delhi

ITA 1368/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2022-23] Ito, Vs Arpitam Builders Llp G-3, Ward 28(1), 2Nd Floor, Maharani E-2 Block, Bagh, East Of Kailash, Civic Center. Delhi-110065. New Delhi-110002 Pan: Abqfa2725F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Respondent By Shri Mayank Patwari & Shri Akash Ojha, Advocates Date Of Hearing 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.11.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

thus submits that ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition by admitting the additional evidences without obtaining the remand report from the AO under Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962 and therefore, the order of the ld. CIT(A) deserves to be struck down and matter be remanded ... onus as per requirement of sec 68 of the Act. The assessee carried the matter before ld. CIT(A) and filed additional evidence under rule 46A of the Rules on which remand report was called wherein the Assessing Officer did not made any adverse comment on the additional documentary evidence

ACIT, C R Building vs. Gurpreet Kochar, K.G.Marg

In the result, Revenue’s appeal ITA No

ITA 3465/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

jewellery in the wealth tax return is nothing but jewellery declared to the Revenue. Ld. DR submitted that assessee has filed additional evidences under Rule 46A and Id. CIT (A) has not followed the 10 due procedure. We observe that jewellery under wealth tax return cannot be considered as additional

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ernakulam, Kochi vs. Samaira Properties Pvt.Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram

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

ITA 609/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Acit, Central Circle - 2, Ernakulam .......... Appellant Vs. Samaira Properties Pvt. Ltd .......... Respondent Samaira House, Kra-D6, Kowdiar Thiruvananthapuram 695003 [Pan: Abbcs6500L] Assessee By: Shri Anoop V.Francis, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Anoop V.Francis, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 144

opportunity of rebuttal to the AO. This approach adopted by the CIT(A) violates the principles of natural justice incorporated in the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and remanded back to the file

Mondal Education Trust, Hooghly vs. DCIT, Circle 23(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 367/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 246ASection 250

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

Bani Broto Banerjee, Kolkata vs. ACIT Circle 58(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1095/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57

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

Seema Sureka, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(3), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2682/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) : (I) Misc. Receipts Of Rs.96,000/- In Cash Shown As Gifts Received & Offered To Tax; (Ii) Receipt Of A Gift Of Rs. 5,84,000/- From An Huf, Claimed As Exempt U/S 56(2) Of The Act; & (Iii) Receipts Of Rs.2,99,133/- Shown As Profit From Commodity Trading, Albeit On Off-Market Basis.

Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

them. However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not accept this explanation as it was, purportedly, new evidence which was submitted without any application under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. (ii) Regarding the issue of “gift” received from HUF, the Ld. CIT(A)'s findings are extracted: “After a careful ... being non-genuine, the assessee had filed details of donees which was refused to be entertained on the technical ground that an application under Rule 46A was not filed. It was further submitted that there was denial of opportunity to the assessee in case there was any doubt about

DCIT Circle 61(1), Delhi vs. Sukhbir Singh Chabra HUF, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 315/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.315/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Sukhbir Singh Chabra Huf Circle 61(1), Vs. 6, Rani Jhansi Road, Delhi. Motia Khan, Delhi. Pan No.Aaahs5683P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 44ASection 92C

erred in accepting the additional evidences filed by the assessee without according an opportunity to AO to examine the same in utter violation of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962. b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... remand report from AO.” 3. Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has filed additional evidences before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules and therefore the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee without giving any opportunity

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 111, Surat vs. Mukesh Arjanbhai Maniya, Surat

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 105/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.105/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Mukesh Arjanbhai Maniya बनाम/ Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(1), C-303, Afil Tower, L.H. Road, Vs. Surat, Room No.108, 1St Varachha, Surat-395 006 Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afepm 7227 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/11/2025

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 250(2)Section 68

providing opportunity of being heard to the AO as per the provisions of section 250(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and Rule 46A(3) of the Income tax Rules, 1962 ? 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred ... during the course of the assessment proceedings, without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not satisfied the basic conditions laid down under Rule 46A(1) of the Income tax Rules, 1962. 6. On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case

Bachalli Ninge Gowda Kempegowda, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1465/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Nagaraj K.H, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 69A

Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT-A. 5. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee filed additional evidences under Rule 46A on 11.03.2020 and 29.01.2021. These included details of bank withdrawals, computation of income, gift from son, and supporting papers. The learned CIT(A), however, dismissed ... Pages 60–65 and 66–70 of the paper book show the details of withdrawals and sources of funds. The application under Rule 46A was also filed. The ld. CIT(A) ignored these . Page 3 of 4 materials and dismissed the appeal. The assessee had discharged the onus to explain

Matrix Automotive, Mumbai vs. Ward 41(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2607/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Matrix Automotive Income Tax Officer-Ward Shop No. 1,2,3,4 Ground Floor, 41(3)(2), Mumbai Business Classic, Chincholi Vs. Kautilya Bhawan, G Block Bunder Road, Malad West, Bkc, Gilban Area, Bandra Mumbai 400064 Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai 400051 Pan No. Aaxfm5446P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Dipesh Ruparelia (Virtually appear)For Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234DSection 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

further appeal, the assessee filed following additional evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) and requested for admitting the same invoking rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short ‘the Rules’) 4 Pravin Prakash Magar “1. Signed Matrix Automative loan account in the books of Rushi C Mali ... admission of the additional evidence, however, gave his comment on the merit also. But the Ld. CIT(A) referred to the provisions of rule 46A that assessee is not entitled for the benefit of rule 46A being none of the conditions of said rules were fulfilled by the assessee

Mrs. Snehlata Goel, Mumbai vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax, Cir-3(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1793/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri S K Tulsian and Lata Goel
Section 133(6)Section 2(14)Section 250

case and in law, the 1,19,74,370/- CIT(A), NFAC erred in not admitting the additional evidences filed by the appellant under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 which had a direct bearing on case of the appellant. 2. The assessee is an individual and filed ... with the following directions Mrs. Snehlata Goel i. Verify the additional evidences submitted by the assessee before the CIT(A) under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules 1962 and the additional documents submitted before the Tribunal as called for. ii. Examine the facts by calling for necessary details