“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

Prathiba Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1424/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1424/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2017-2018 Prathiba Educational The Income Tax Officer, Society, Hyderabad. Ward-6(4), Pin – 500 038 Vs. Hyderabad. Pan Aaatp4036B. Pin – 500 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By : Ca Sanket Milind Joshi राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Sri Krishna Moorthy K. Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: CA Sanket Milind JoshiFor Respondent: Sri Krishna Moorthy K. Sr. AR

Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69Section 69A

follows : 12. Whether any documentary evidence produced during the course of proceedings before the Income- -No- tax Authority has been filed in terms of Rule 46A 12.1. If reply to 12 is Yes, furnish the list of such documentary evidence. 7.4. From the above it is clear that the appellant

ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Rithwik Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 518/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena (in

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 35DSection 37(1)

facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Id. CIT (Appeals) erred in not following the due procedure prescribed under Rule 46A of IT Rules as no opportunity was given to the AO to examine the additional evidence/ledger extracts relating to the amount added as unexplained ... addition made towards unexplained expenditure without appreciating the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) admitted additional evidences without following due procedure prescribed under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, as no opportunity was given to the A.O. to examine the additional evidences/ledger extracts related to the amount added

Stuti Mahendra Hingorani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 31(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5513/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2015-16 Stuti Mahendra Hingorani, Income Tax Officer, A-305, Regency Lokhanduala Ward-31(2)(1), Complex, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Andheri West, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Mumbai-400058. Bandra Kurla Complex, Pan : Adfph3280F Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR

Section 144BSection 147

perused the material available on record. 5. We find that as part of the Form-35, the assessee has moved an application under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidences and the application as well as the additional evidences were uploaded as part of appeal documentation. However, there ... needs to be set aside to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the assessee‟s application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A especially in light of the fact that the assessment order was also passed u/s. 144B of the Act as well as to decide

Income Tax Officer, City Centre, Gwalior vs. Ajay Singh, Gwalior

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

ITA 405/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Yadav, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 142Section 148Section 69A

justified in law or in facts admitting the evidences submitted by the assessee during the appeal proceedings in violation of provisions laid down in Rule 46A and deleted the addition of Rs.8.84 crores.” At the time of hearing, Id. DR of the Revenue submitted that ... justified in admitting the evidences submitted by the assessee during the appeal proceedings in violation of the provisions laid down in Rule 46A and heavily relied on the findings of the Assessing Officer. On the other hand, however none appeared on behalf of the assessee but assessee submitted relevant facts

ACIT, Central Circle-1, Jodhpur vs. M/S. Adarsh Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Sirohi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, as indicated above

ITA 212/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prakul Khurana, Advocate and Shri Mukesh Soni, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 33Section 35Section 40Section 56Section 5ASection 67(1)Section 73

shall afford the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, permit filing of any additional evidence, if warranted, in terms of Rule 46A, and shall pass a well-reasoned, speaking order dealing point-by-point with the AO’s objections and the assessee’s replies. 12.4 We make it clear that

ACIT, Central Circle-1, Jodhpur vs. M/S. Adarsh Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Sirohi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, as indicated above

ITA 211/JODH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prakul Khurana, Advocate and Shri Mukesh Soni, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 33Section 35Section 40Section 56Section 5ASection 67(1)Section 73

Mohammed Husain, Indore vs. Income-Tax Officer, 4(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 761/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 69A

impugned order of first-appeal passed by CIT(A) to demonstrate that the assessee filed additional evidences to CIT(A) in terms of Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962 on which the CIT(A) sought remand-report from AO. In remand report, the AO made objection against admissibility

Kapil Chamanlal Setia, Dhule vs. Addl/Joint/Dy/Asst.CIT/ITO, Itd, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 810/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.810/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 250

Company. We also observe that ld.CIT(A) has not admitted these additional evidences eventhough remand report was called from the ld. JAO on 12.12.2024. Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules has a direct bearing on the facts of the instant case and the same reads as under : “Production ... section (1) of section 251 or the imposition of penalty under section 271.” 8. From going through the above rules, we notice that Rule 46A(1)(c) of the Act provides that the additional evidences can be produced before ld.CIT(A) where the appellant was prevented by ‘sufficient cause’ from

Inbox Pictures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-16 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 3774/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: BEFORESHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 68Section 69A

also confirmed. In respect of the addition relating to sundry creditors, the assessee had furnished additional evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. However, the Ld. CIT(A) was not convinced by the explanation offered by the assessee regarding the non-submission

Incomet Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Deepak Govindbhai Gangani, Mumbai

ITA 5945/MUM/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 144Section 147Section 148

Officer has opposed admission of additional evidence contending that the Assessee had failed to show why additional evidence should be admitted in terms of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1963. Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1963 provides of circumstances in which additional evidence can be admitted ... first appellate authority. 9. As per Rule 46A(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1963 the first appellate authority is required to record reasons in writing for admitting such additional evidence. We find that in the present case, the CIT(A) has failed to comply with Rule 46A

Kajal Batra, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-52(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed as above

ITA 2419/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69A

before the AO and which document was not submitted before the AO. Also, no specific request was made for admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A of the IT Rules. 11.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee was and to furnish the details along with documentary evidences

Income Tax Officer - 3(1), Bhopal, Metro Walk Building, Bitton Market vs. Shabana Sheikh, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 588/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 54ESection 69A

account of unexplained investment in fixed deposits on the basis of additional evidence submitted by the assessee without following the due procedure required under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules.” 3. Page 4 of 8 Shabana Sheikh A.Y. 2018-19 Record of Hearing 3.1 That the hearing in the matter ... assessee. That for considering the additional evidences the income tax Act 1961 & the Rules framed thereunder contemplates a “due process” which is contained in Rule 46A of the Rules which has not been followed by the Ld. CIT(A) hence without strictly adhering to the due process/procedure prescribed by Rule/law

ACIT, Anand Circle, Anand vs. Narendrakumar Hansrajbhai Patel, Kheda

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

ITA 834/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.834/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2021-22 The Acit Narendrakumar Hansrajbhai बनाम/ Dy./Asst.Commissioner Of Patel V/S. Income Tax (Anand Circle) I C/O. Mahakali Saw Mill Anand – 388 001 Mansarovar Marker Kamla Kamia, Kheda – 387 320 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Cmmpp 6784 N (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mishal Mehta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 27/02/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-2022. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether, On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 10,64,04,151/-Made U/S 69C Of The Act Without Appreciating The Fact The Assessee Failed To Substantiate The Expenditure Claimed With Supporting Evidences? Asst.Cit Vs. Narendrakumar Hansrajbhai Patel Asst. Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Mishal Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69C

proceeded to allow full relief to the assessee without calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer as required under Rule 46A(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 8. In our considered view, once the CIT(A) admits additional evidences during appellate proceedings, he is mandatorily required ... Officer to examine and rebut such evidences before passing an order. The failure to do so constitutes a violation of the procedure prescribed under Rule 46A(3) and renders the appellate order unsustainable in law. The Hon’ble Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in Enzen Global Solutions

Shyamnagar Anchal Skus Ltd., Bankura vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Bankura

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

ITA 711/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

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

Sarang Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 4(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1230/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 250Section 68

Grand Ark Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp. Circle-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 862/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 133(6)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 191C(6)Section 194C(6)Section 40

mind is unjustified and unsustainable. The Id.Counsel contends that the Id.CIT(A) wrongfully rejected the assessee's plea for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, without appreciating the extraordinary circumstances that led to the non-submission during assessment proceedings. The Id.Counsel contends that ... transport declarations, registration certificates, trip details, and ledger accounts of various contractors. However, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the admission of these documents under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 without recording adequate justification. In our considered view, the additional evidence submitted by the assessee is relevant

DCIT-42(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik, Mumbai

In the result, the cross

ITA 989/MUM/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. DR

Section 68

such some concern that no formal application seeking admission of such some concern that no formal application seeking admission of such additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income l evidence under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 tax Rules, 1962 was filed. 4.1 Nevertheless ... entertained additional evidence in breach of the the Ld. CIT(A) entertained additional evidence in breach of the procedural mandate of Rule 46A procedural mandate of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 tax Rules, 1962. It is trite law that the power to admit additional evidence must

Uday Ghanshyam Naik, Mumbai vs. ITO Circle 42(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the cross

ITA 1098/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. DR

Section 68

Dilip Jawaharlal Varyani, Pune vs. DCIT Circle-8, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 643/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita No.643/Pun/2025 निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year:2011-12 Dilip Jawaharlal Varyani, V The Dy.Commissioner Of S.No.9/2B, Cts No.905, S Income Tax, Circle-8, Vaibhav Vihar, Near Vikram Pune. Vihar, Pimpri, Pune – 411017. Pan: Acapv0521H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarad Vaze, Ca – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde, Irs–Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 19.06.2024 For The A.Y.2011-12 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 26.03.2014. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

copy of bank statement was filed before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has considered the said submission dated 15.05.2017. However, as per Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, the ld.CIT(A) should have called-for a report from the Assessing Officer with reference to the documents filed before ld.CIT

Kamalpur Jotekanuragarh S K U S Limited, Paschim Medinipur vs. ACIT, Circle 38, Midnapur

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

ITA 382/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 271FSection 272A(1)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

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