← 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

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

ITA 3928/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
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

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

ITA 3228/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

others The Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. and others 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 ... others The Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. and others 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

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3227/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. and others 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 in deleting ... 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; The Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. and others 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

ITA 3225/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

others The Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. and others 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 ... others The Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. and others 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

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3224/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2020-21
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

others The Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. and others 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 ... others The Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. and others 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

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3223/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

others The Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. and others 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 ... others The Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. and others 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

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3222/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2022-23
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

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

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3087/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
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

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

ITA 3012/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

others The Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. and others 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 ... others The Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. and others 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

Ramesh Verma, Moradabad vs. ITO, 2(1), Moradabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5124/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalmr. Ramesh Verma, Income Tax Officer, Bhogpur Mithoni, Ward-2(1), Atal Mohalla, Mandi Chowk, Vs. Moradabad. Moradabad-244001 Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Acvpv3651M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mayank Patawarai, Adv. Shri Akash Ojha, Adv. Department By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 18.09.2024 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Moradabad/20293/2019-20 Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) Dated 14.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Had Filed His Return Of Income On 30.03.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,72,820/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass For Examination Of Cash Ramesh Verma Vs. Ito Deposits & Cash Withdrawals In The Bank Accounts. The Ao Has Observed That Assessee Is Maintaining Two Bank Accounts (I) With State Bank Of India & (Ii) With Prathma Bank. As Per The Ao, Total Cash Of Rs.71,12,000/- Were Deposited During The Year Which Were Alleged As Unexplained U/S 69A & Addition Was Made. In Addition To This, Further Addition Was Made On Account Of Other Deposit In Both The Bank Accounts.

Section 143(3)Section 69A

submitted for the first time during this proceeding which was not submitted before the assessing officer. Accordingly, the same becomes additional evidence as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules and the appellant had not furnished any request for admission of additional the evidence explaining the circumstances

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhandewalan, New Delhi vs. Israni Buildwell Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 3132/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 148Section 194CSection 194ISection 68Section 69Section 69C

failed to discharge its onus during assessment proceedings? 4) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in admitting the additional evidence from assessee as per rule 46A notified by CBDT, even though the assessee failed to produce the same when asked upon by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings ... additional evidence by the Ld. CIT(A) without providing an opportunity of being heard to the Ld. AY in accordance with the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. Thus, it was submitted that there was no justification of admission of the additional evidence

Sneha Pawan Agarwal, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1369/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 253(3)Section 253(5)

changing of tax on same is charged wrong and same needs to be deleted. In ITA No.1368 and 1369/Ahd/2025 6 Rule 46A Additional Evidences: The assessee requests your good-self to allow production and submission of additional evidences during the course of appellate proceedings which, for the one reason ... Addition made are bad in law and changing of tax on same is charged wrong and same needs to be deleted. Rule 46A Additional Evidences: The assessee requests your good-self to allow production and submission of additional evidences during the course of appellate proceedings which, for the one reason

Sneha Pawan Agarwal, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1368/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 253(3)Section 253(5)

changing of tax on same is charged wrong and same needs to be deleted. In ITA No.1368 and 1369/Ahd/2025 6 Rule 46A Additional Evidences: The assessee requests your good-self to allow production and submission of additional evidences during the course of appellate proceedings which, for the one reason ... Addition made are bad in law and changing of tax on same is charged wrong and same needs to be deleted. Rule 46A Additional Evidences: The assessee requests your good-self to allow production and submission of additional evidences during the course of appellate proceedings which, for the one reason

Karyon Healthy Co Forever LLP, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 7(3), Pune

ITA 1563/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Abhilash HiranFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia (Virtual)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 270A

dismissed the appeal of the assessee on technical ground of not furnishing any application with regard to admission of additional evidences in terms of Rule 46A. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in the absence of application/request by the assessee to permit him to rely on additional evidences, dismissed the appeal ... produce such documents before the Assessing Officer and now furnishing all such additional documents before him without filing any application in terms of Rule 46A of the Rules. According to Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, even in Form No.35 nothing was mentioned in this regard. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed

Karyon Healthy Co Forever LLP, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 7(3), Pune

ITA 1562/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Abhilash HiranFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia (Virtual)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 270A

dismissed the appeal of the assessee on technical ground of not furnishing any application with regard to admission of additional evidences in terms of Rule 46A. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in the absence of application/request by the assessee to permit him to rely on additional evidences, dismissed the appeal ... produce such documents before the Assessing Officer and now furnishing all such additional documents before him without filing any application in terms of Rule 46A of the Rules. According to Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, even in Form No.35 nothing was mentioned in this regard. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed

Karyon Healthy Co Forever LLP, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 7(3), Pune

ITA 1561/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Abhilash HiranFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia (Virtual)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 270A

dismissed the appeal of the assessee on technical ground of not furnishing any application with regard to admission of additional evidences in terms of Rule 46A. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in the absence of application/request by the assessee to permit him to rely on additional evidences, dismissed the appeal ... produce such documents before the Assessing Officer and now furnishing all such additional documents before him without filing any application in terms of Rule 46A of the Rules. According to Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, even in Form No.35 nothing was mentioned in this regard. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed

Karyon Healthy Co Forever LLP, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 7(3), Pune

ITA 1560/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Abhilash HiranFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia (Virtual)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 270A

dismissed the appeal of the assessee on technical ground of not furnishing any application with regard to admission of additional evidences in terms of Rule 46A. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in the absence of application/request by the assessee to permit him to rely on additional evidences, dismissed the appeal ... produce such documents before the Assessing Officer and now furnishing all such additional documents before him without filing any application in terms of Rule 46A of the Rules. According to Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, even in Form No.35 nothing was mentioned in this regard. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed

Malay Karjee, Income Tax Officer, Ward-38(1), Midnapur vs. Kurkutbandhi Skus Ltd., Kurkutbandhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 505/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Income Tax Officer, Kurkutbandhi Skus Ltd. Ward 38(1), Midnapur, Kurkutbandhi, Jagardanga, Paschim Medinipur-721101, Paschim Medinipur-711121 Vs. West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabak9302K Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Pandey, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, DR
Section 144Section 69ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

Appeals) has erred in allowing additional evidence at the appellate stage, Inspite of the fact that the conditions that the conditions under Rule 46A was not fulfilled in this case.” 2. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 24,30,594/- for disallowance of deduction ... income.” 03. The issue raised in ground no.1 is against the order of learned CIT (A) allowing the additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A of the it Rules, 1962, which is in our opinion is wrong as the learned CIT (A) during the appellate proceedings called for the remand

DCIT, Circle-1, Siliguri vs. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1463/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrisonjoy Sarma, Jm

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

details of withdrawals copy of capital accounts of the assessee along with copy of bank statements of PNB thereby violating a provision of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules 1962. 012. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that in this case ... filed any additional evidences suo moto. Therefore, these evidences filed by the assessee cannot be considered as additional evidences calling for compliance under rule 46A of the IT Rules on the part of the Id. CIT (A). The assessee filed before us the decision of Honorable Jurisdictional High Court

DCIT(Central Circle)-3(3), Mumbai vs. Juicy International Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known As Avaada Ventures Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai

ITA 4388/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 250

form of additional evidences, along with petition dated 19/02/2024 for admission of such evidence and, therefore, the Ld. Commissioner as per the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (for short, 'Rules'), remanded such additional evidence to the AO for verification and comments. 21. The AO consequently ... details pertaining to the relevant parties. This clearly shows that proper opportunity was not provided to the appellant during the assessment proceedings. As per Rule 46A (1), the said evidences are admissible under sub rule (d) wherein sufficient opportunity was not provided. In any case, the additional evidences are also