← 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

Shyam Greenfield Developer Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1164/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 253(3)Section 253(5)

grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary I.T.A. No.: 1164/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shyam Greenfield Developer Private Limited. 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. Accordingly

M/S Impex Ferro Tech Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.Ci.T., Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1640/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144CSection 145(3)Section 250

case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by admitting new facts based on new evidence/document which has not passed the test of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 before admitting internal CUP as the most appropriate method. 13. That on the facts and in the circumstances ... Impex Ferro Tech Ltd. from producing such facts and evidences during the Transfer Pricing Audit proceeding before the TPO and thereby violates Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 14. That the appellant craves leave to add to and/or alter, amend, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before

D.Ci.T., Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Impex Ferro Tech Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1521/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144CSection 145(3)Section 250

case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by admitting new facts based on new evidence/document which has not passed the test of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 before admitting internal CUP as the most appropriate method. 13. That on the facts and in the circumstances ... Impex Ferro Tech Ltd. from producing such facts and evidences during the Transfer Pricing Audit proceeding before the TPO and thereby violates Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 14. That the appellant craves leave to add to and/or alter, amend, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before

Vipul Mathuradas Thakkar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(2), Kalyan

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

ITA 4936/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanvipul Mathuradas Thakkar Ito Ward 3(2), 402, Madhav Baug, Gaushala Road, Rani Mansion, Kalyan Shivaji Path, Kalyan, Maharashtra- Vs. Maharashtra-421301 421301 Pan: Aaipt0824B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Haridas Bhatt, Ld. Ar Department Represented By : Ms. Kavita Kaushik, Ld. Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2025

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 68

Ahuja Properties & Associates that it has genuinely extended loan to it. Even in Form no.35, appellant claimed to submit additional evidence in terms of Rule 46A. However, appellant has not submitted any additional evidence to support its contention. Even the additional evidence in the form of original confirmation signed

Aslam Kassam Merchant, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4695/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2015-16 Aslam Kassam Merchant, Income Tax Officer, 85, Ground Floor, Ward-20(1)(2), Victoria Road, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Mustafa Bazar, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400010. Pan : Aefpm5272D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Pravin B. Shetty For Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-10-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-10-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 26-05-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Pravin B. ShettyFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

Ld.CIT(A) on 27-01-2018 and as a part of its submissions, the assessee moved a prayer for submission of additional evidences under Rule 46A vide submission dt. 30-08-2018, wherein the assessee submitted that the necessary confirmations from the Sundry Creditors which was sought

ITO 19.2.4, Mumbai vs. Nishita Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2989/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Ar
Section 250Section 50ESection 54ESection 54F

presumption that the explanation provided by the Assessee was satisfactory. I therefore humbly request you to kindly admit the same as additional evidence under Rule 46A of the 1.Tax Act, 1961.). 8. The relevant stamp duty on such a gift of 87 shares has been paid (Copy of the same

Nishita Vijay Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)4, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1787/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Ar
Section 250Section 50ESection 54ESection 54F

presumption that the explanation provided by the Assessee was satisfactory. I therefore humbly request you to kindly admit the same as additional evidence under Rule 46A of the 1.Tax Act, 1961.). 8. The relevant stamp duty on such a gift of 87 shares has been paid (Copy of the same

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Jwil Infra Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1831/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)

absolutely unjustified whereas the AO has observed otherwise and Ld. CIT(A) has not remanded back the issue to the AO under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule, 1962? 5. The appellant craves to add, alter or amend any/all of the 5 grounds of appeal before or during ... being unsubstantiated expenses. The ld DR relying on the orders of the AO, vehemently argued that the CIT(A) should have followed the Rule 46A to get response of the AO on the evidences/documents submitted by the assessee. 10. Per contra, the ld AR of the assessee strongly defended

Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Office vs. Ritu Bala, Faridabda

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3621/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Ritu Bala, Vs. Faridabad 4237 Indra Prashtha Colony, Haryana Faridabad – 121 001 Haryana Pan :Bdhpb1495B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 148Section 148ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 69C

technicalities? 7. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence in violation of rule 46A and therefore the order of CITI) needs to be set aside." 5. Learned Authorized Representative for Revenue submitted that notice under section

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirunelveli vs. Swathikhas Jewellers, Marthandam

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

ITA 2298/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2298/Chny/2025 यनिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Assistant Commissioner M/S. Swathikas Jewellers, Of Income Tax, Vs. 6/25/2 Main Road, Circle 1, Marthandam, Tirunelveli Kanyakumari – 629 165 Pan: Aaffp 9089D (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri C.P. Solomon, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri C.P. Solomon, CITFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 68

based on materials available on record. 3. The only effective issue raised by the revenue in this appeal is challenging the violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules by the learned CITA in not providing opportunity to the assessing officer with regard to the additional evidences filed ... revenue before us is not providing opportunity to the Learned AO by the Learned CITA. Hence, we hold that there was indeed violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules committed by the learned CITA. Hence, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem

G. Senthilkumar, Thanjavur vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 2130/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2130/Chny/2025 यनिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri G. Senthilkumar, The Income Tax Officer, A24, Kannan Nagar, Vs. Che-W-192(16), 5Th Cross, Chennai Thanjavur – 613 007. Pan: Axyps 4086R (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Gokularaman, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.P. Solomon, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Gokularaman, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, CIT
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 69A

u/s.69A of the Act for want of evidence from the side of assessee. 4. Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules by seeking to explain that there was some loan borrowed from bank and such borrowing were subjected to certain

Sri Prem Properties Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-24(1), New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 957/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Sri Prem Properties Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 24 (1), A – 99, Bajghera Chowk, Delhi. New Palam Vihar, Gurgaon – 122 017 (Haryana). (Pan :Aaacs2554E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Skasham Agarwal, Ca Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2025 Date Of Order : 24.10.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)]Dated 04.01.2024 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 30.09.2012 Declaring An Income Of Rs.2,15,340/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny For The Year Under Consideration.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, CIT DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148

that the assessee 4 for the first time placed certain documents in respect of the claim, however assessee has not furnished any application under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1961 for admission of additional evidences and also not explained the reasons for not placing the evidences before ... demanding such documents. He submitted that it was wrong for ld. CIT(A) to say that additional evidences were furnished without application under Rule 46A as these evidences were there before AO only. He further brought to our notice pages 39-61 which is the letter and evidence filed before

Tapas Kumar Sarkar, Barasat, North Twenty Four Parganas vs. I.T.O., Ward - 50(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1873/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Oct 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 194Section 194CSection 194JSection 250Section 40

Tapas Kumar Sarkar. 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. Accordingly

Tapas Kumar Sarkar, Barasat, North Twenty Four Parganas vs. I.T.O., Ward - 50(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1872/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 194Section 194CSection 194JSection 250Section 40

Tapas Kumar Sarkar. 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. Accordingly

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Acqueon Technologies Private Limited, Chennai

Appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1805/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. S. P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T
Section 143(3)

verified by the Ld.CIT(A) and hence the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not affording opportunity to the AO which is in violation of Rule 46A. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) has failed to verify and give a finding on whether the corresponding income was offered by the assessee and allow ... same was not emanating from the impugned assessment order passed pursuant to the directions of this Tribunal. Further, there is a gross violation of Rule 46A of the Income tax Rules by the Id.CIT(A) in not calling for remand report from the AO while confirming the additional claim

Dipak Kumar Hazra, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward 47(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1135/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 43B

both the Ld. AO as well as the assessee and also grant an opportunity of representing the case to the Ld. AO as per rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, and thereafter pass an order in accordance with law after examining the facts of the case. For statistical

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(1), Surat vs. Ambubhai Thakorbhai Patel, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1020/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1020/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 (Hybrid Hearing) Income-Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(1), Ambubhai Thakorbhai Patel बनाम/ Surat, Room No. 614, 6Th Floor, 2/5 Bhesan, Gosai Faliyu Choryasi, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 005 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ctopp 7620 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) ""या"ेप सं /Co No.9/Srt/2025 (A/O Ita No.1020/Srt/2024/ (Ay 2018-19) Ambubhai Thakorbhai Patel Income-Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(1), बनाम/ 2/5 Bhesan, Gosai Faliyu Surat, Room No. 614, 6Th Floor, Vs. Choryasi, Surat-395 005 Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ctopp 7620 J (""यथ"/Respondent) (Co-Objector)

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(2)Section 48

providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessing Officer as per the provisions of section 250(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and Rule 46A(3) of the Income tax Rules, 1962. iv. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... 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. v. On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case

Income Tax Officer, Tenali vs. Suryaprakasarao Kanaparthy, Bethapudi, Repalle

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations, while for the appeal filed by the revenue having been rendered as academic in nature, is ...

ITA 239/VIZ/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.239/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Suryaprakasarao Tenali. Kanaparthy, Bethapudi, Repalle, Bapatla. Pan: Dmqpk7509P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 69A

have called for remand report from the Assessing Officer when the appellant has filed additional evidence during the course of appellate proceedings under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred on facts in stating that the appellant is employee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Tirupati vs. Venkata Swamy Ravuri, Chittoor

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

ITA 257/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Advocate Sashank Dundu
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 68

Venkata Swamy Ravuri 10.25, 104/-,before accepting any additional evidence and not giving an opportunity to the assessing officer as per the Rule 46A of Income tax rules, 1962. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred by accepting the Form ... availability of business cash balance and bank withdrawals, along with supporting bank statements. These documents and explanations constituted additional evidence within the meaning of Rule 46A of Page 3 of 26 ITA no 257 of 2022 Venkata Swamy Ravuri the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (“Rules”). However, no application under Rule

DCIT, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. The Estate Investment Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3936/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

giving opportunity to the Assessing Officer to verify the documents filed before him during the appellate proceedings by calling for a remand report under rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962; 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred ... giving opportunity to the Assessing Officer to verify the documents filed before him during the appellate proceedings by calling for a remand report under rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962; 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred