“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

Mohammad Isha, Varanasi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(2), Varanasi

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

ITA 34/VNS/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Mohammad Isha V. The Income Tax Officer B-18/52, Rewri Talab Ward 2(2) Varanasi (U.P) Varanasi Tan/Pan:Aaqpi6457F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate Respondent By: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R

Section 115BSection 144Section 271ASection 69A

appeal filed by the appellant solely on the ground that the appellant has filed additional evidences before him without accompanying the petition under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule, 1962, as also that no case is made out by the appellant under Rule 46A(1) of the Rules which ... erred in law as on facts in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant solely on the ground of violation of Rule 46A. without adjudicating the matter on merits, as no opportunity for the same was ever given by the CIT(A) before disposing the appeal against the appellant. WITHOUT

Prakash Gupta, Gopalganj vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2 (4), Siwan

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

ITA 206/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 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

Incometax Officer, Ward-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Surendra Nath Gubbala, Visakhapatnam

ITA 482/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 48

expenditure with the transfer; and (iv) the CIT(A) had erred in admitting additional evidence without affording opportunity to the A.O as mandated by Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Also, the assessee is before us as a cross objector supporting the CIT(A)’s order ... case in admitting additional documentary evidence without calling for the objections of the A.O. as was indispensably required per the mandate of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. However, on a specific query by the bench as to what 14 ITA No.482/Viz/2024 & CO No.03/Viz/2025 Surendra Nath Gubbala additional

Biochemical and Synthetics Products Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1306/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1306/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2020-21)

For Appellant: Advocate Bharath JanarthananFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR

before the Ld. CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the assessee filed additional evidences along with a petition for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”). However, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the petition for admission of additional evidences and dismissed ... Paper Book No.1 and submitted that the additional evidences were duly filed before the Ld. CIT(A) on 02.01.2025 along with a petition under Rule 46A of the Rules. He further submitted that subsequent to such filing, the Ld. CIT(A) issued notices dated 09.06.2025 and 15.07.2025, but neither made

Rajesh Bubna, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 20, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1424/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69A

That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by not admitting Additional Evidence filed under Rule 46A of the IT Rules 1962 without considering the reasonable cause mentioned therein. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not providing ... Appellant with the reasonable opportunity of being heard neither before rejecting the Application under Rule 46A nor before the Appellate order. 5. That the appellant reserves the right to add, modify, alter, amend or delete any of the grounds.” 4. Before us, the Ld. AR submits that during the course

Ratanshi, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Morbi

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

ITA 171/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Parekh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

that circumstances there has been violation of principle of natural justice by not giving opportunity to assessing officer thereby violating the provision contained in Rule 46A of the Rules. The Tribunal, if found correct, without going into the merits of the case, would simple set aside the matter

Asif Iqubal, Siwan vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Siwan

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

ITA 315/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Lucknow vs. Reeta Singh, Lucknow

In the result, the addition of aforesaid amount of Rs

ITA 378/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)

produced/submitted before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings. Even if the assessee did so, it would not have been admissible without meeting requirements under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules. There is not even whisper about Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules in the impugned order of learned

Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2)(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Sonaben Anilkumar Variya, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1677/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 Ito, Ward-3(2)(1) Sonaben Anilkumar Variya Ahmedabad. Arhum Elegans Aec Cross Road City Naranpura Vistar So Ahmedabad. Pan : Amwpv 5380 Q (Applicant) (Responent) : None Assessee By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09 /10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 2(47)

despite their non-declaration in ITRs for A.Y. 2020-21 to 2022-23 and potential taxability u/s 56 or as capital gains, and violated Rule 46A by admitting additional evidence without a remand report to the AO, rendering the order unsustainable and warranting reversal with revenue implication ... erred in deleting the addition without calling for a remand report from the AO despite admission of additional evidence, which is contrary to Rule 46A. The DR submitted that in the interest of justice, the matter should be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal

Kasiraj Rengappa, Tamilnadu vs. ITO, Ward Int. Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 414/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Kasiraj Rengappa Vs Ito, 6313, Clover Hill Drive, Ward-1(1)(1) San Jose Foreign, International Taxation, United States Of America Or Civic Centre, Minto Road, [Indian Address] - 3/226, New Delhi-110002. Navaneethkrishnapuram Sevlkulam, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu-627754. Pan-Brjpr2094A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri T.Vasudevan, Adv. (Through Vc) Respondent By Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.12.2021 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi-42 [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-42/10502/2019-20 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 26.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is Nri & Earned Income From Interest Only During The Year & Filed His Return Of Income On 17.03.2018, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 85,320/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny By Issue Of Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Acton 24.09.2018. Thereafter Notices Were Issued U/S 142(1) In Response To Which Assessee Filed Reply From Time To Time. The Ao Observed That Assessee Deposited Cash In Sbn During Demonetization Period From 09.11.2016 To 30.12.2016 Into His Bank Account With State Bank Of India, Nro Account No.33350651335 Of Inr 22,50,000/-. After Considering The Submission Filed, Ao Passed The Order On 26.12.2019 U/S 143(3) Of The Act Wherein Total Income Of The Assessee Was Assessed At Inr 23,35,320/-.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

considering the submission of the appellant and holding that a new evidence was produced and that appellant had not made an application under Rule 46A which is against the facts of the case. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that, even ... absence of an application being filed by the appellant under Rule 46A, the Appellate Authority is empowered to verify the claim of the appellant with the Assessing officer if it is observed that a new evidence is produced at the time of appellate proceedings and arrive at a conclusion

Sesham Ramanaiah, Prakasam vs. ITO., Ward-1, Ongole

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

ITA 1062/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Ms. Swathi Sheela, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

upheld the additions, holding ITA No.1062/Hyd/2025 7 that additional evidence filed by the assessee could not be considered since no petition under Rule 46A was filed. 5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Sr Peddi Estates India Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1302/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 44A

Director. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed confirmations/ledger/bank extracts, which, according to the Ld. DR, ought not to have been admitted under Rule 46A, as adequate opportunities had already been given by the Ld. AO. The Ld. DR further pointed out that, (i) the related party disclosure (audited ... upheld. Accordingly, ground No.4 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. ITA No.1302/Hyd/2024 21 13. Ground No.5 of the Revenue relates to alleged contravention of Rule 46A. In this regard, the Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in procedure by not following Rule 46A of the Income

Houlihan Lokey Ad vs. Iory (India) Private Limited, Mumbaivs.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3767/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282Section 40

Aggrieved by the said order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) and during appellate proceedings submitted additional evidences under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962.As per the ld.CIT(A),a remand report had been obtained from the AO and on the basis of the report

Jagdish Solanki, Jhabua vs. Income Tax Officer Jhabua, Jhabua

ITA 169/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Deepak Singhal, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 561/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.561/Hyd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2017-2018 Deepak Singhal, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 027. Ward-4(1), Vs. Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Avvps0498L Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Smt. S. Sandhya, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 02.02.2024 Of The Learned Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short “Nfac], Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 144

assessee in limine and not decided the issue on merits. Now, the assessee has filed the additional evidence along with petition under Rule 46A of IT Rules, 1962 in support of the claim to show that the deposits made in the bank account are nothing, but are transactions, on which

Sweety Devi, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-6(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1506/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.H. Yeshwanth Kumar, Adv

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 69C

main grievance of the assessee is against action of the Ld.CIT(A) refusing to admit additional evidences filed by the assessee quoting Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules‘) and thereafter, confirming the action of the AO making addition

Income Tax Officer-19(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Harishkumar Vastimal Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2247/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarincome Tax Officer – V/S. Harishkumar Vastimal 19(1)(5), Room No. 502, 5 Th बनाम Mehta Floor, Piramal Chambers, Office No. 16, 2Nd Floor, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – Kikabhai Mansion 7, Kika 400 012, Maharashtra Street, Gulalwadi, Mumbai – 400 004, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aampm4020A Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr. DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

submissions alongwith the documentary evidences filed by the Assessee during the appellate proceedings without asking Remand Report from the Assessing Officer, as prescribed in rule 46A of Income-Tax Act, 1962?” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the return of income was filed declaring total income ... deciding the appeal afresh afteraffording reasonable opportunity to both the sides in respect of the additional evidence filed before him in terms of Rule 46A. Needless to say that nothing is opined on the merits of the case by us and none of the observations made hereinabove shall

Tigerhill Tradelink Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Appellant is Dismissed

ITA 956/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 271BSection 68

either call for a remand report from the Ld. AO or grant an opportunity as per rule 46A so that the facts can be ascertained and a judicious order can be passed. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 7. As regards ITA No. 955/KOL/2025

Tigerhill Tradelink Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Appellant is Dismissed

ITA 955/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 271BSection 68

Jagveer Singh, Banda vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Satna

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

ITA 11/JAB/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Jagveer Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Village Bhiyamau Khohi Thana, Ward-1, Satna Baraunda, Satna, M.P. Pan:Eneps0024R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act On 20.03.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Ex-Party Order Passed U/S Rs. 144 For Ay 2018-19 On 20.03.2023 By Faceless Centre Holding Cash Deposits To The Extent Of Rs. 1,76,85,400/-Deposited In Bank Accounts As Unexplained Cash & Thereby Making Addition Of 1,76,85,400/- Is Wholly Illegal, Unlawful & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Ex-Party Order Of Learned Cit(A) Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed For Non Consideration Of Material On Record & Additions Made Of Rs 1,76,85,400/- Is Illegal In Want Of Non-Application Of Principles Of Natural Justice 3. Without Prejudice:-The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Ex-Party & Thereby Confirming The Order Passed By Assessing Officer. The Ex-Party Order Passed By Learned Assessing Officer Being Bad In Law & Void-Ab-Inito Was Required To Be Quashed Instead Of Being Confirmed

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR

Section 147

party assessment order /assessment followed by CIT(A) is liable to be quashed. The appellant may be allowed to produce additional evidence as per Rule 46A and it may be admitted. 5. The Ld. AO has grievously erred in law and or on facts in holding entire cash deposits