“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

Punjab House, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 54/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18 Punjab House V. Income Tax Officer, 1, Star Complex, Opp Dominos, Ward-2(1) Jyoti Talkies Road, Napier Town Annexe Building, Aayakar Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh- Bhawan, Napier Town, 482001. Jabalpur-Madhya Pradesh-482001. Pan: Aaqfp3056R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri G. N. Purohit, Sr. Advocate. Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri G. N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

first appellate authority order is against facts as per law, that when the assessee has filed evidences of TDS and Entry Challan under Rule 46A hen this contention could have been very well entertained on the principles of natural justice to avoid any injustice as per law to the assessee

The ACIT Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham vs. Softel Machines Limited, Gandhidham ( Kutch)

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

ITA 175/RJT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Pungalia, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 68

ought to have put before the assessing officer to ACIT vs. Softel Machines Ltd. submit comments / acceptability of the new evidence under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rule. However, the same was not remanded before the assessing officer. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts ... evidences which the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have put before the assessing officer to submit comments /acceptability of the new evidence under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rule. However, the same was not remanded before the assessing officer. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts

Kalpana Veera Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Hyderabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 931/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

course of the proceedings before the CIT(A) had filed with him the written submissions, application for admission of additional evidence under Rule-46A of the IT Rules, 1962 and a copy of the bank statement which evidenced the availability of sufficient cash in hand that was utilized to make ... Kalpana Veera Reddy vs. ITO assessee’s written submissions, Page 2 of the APB, application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Rules (filed on 19/12/2019), Page 1 of the APB, and also the availability of the cash in hand with the assessee which in turn

Femina Concept Marketing & Retail Trading (Textiles) Co Private Limited, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6940/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GantraFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (Sr. DR)

Section 147Section 250Section 250(4)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

Officer was very well within the powers of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under section 250(4) of the Act or under Rule 46A of the Rules. Therefore, order is passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under misconception of judicial obligation and powers and therefore

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Agra, Sanjay Place vs. Surendra Kumar Gautam, Sadabad

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 163/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

evidence was not submitted before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Thus, the CIT(A) has failed to adhere to the provisions of Rule 46A, which mandates that an opportunity must be provided to the Assessing Officer for giving his own perspective on additional evidences before being considered

Bhagya Kalita, Guwahati vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati

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

ITA 257/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 271A

grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. The Ld. CIT(A) shall consider the provisions of section 271AAB of the Act 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

Bhagya Kalita, Guwahati vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati

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

ITA 256/GTY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 271A

Saroj Devi, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (4), Patna

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

ITA 242/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 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

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation, Jaipur vs. Bharat Kumar Manghnani, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 872/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Mrs. Suhani Meharwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69Section 69A

learned 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 2 Mr. Bharat Kumar Manghnani, Jaipur. that no additional evidence shall be admitted by the CIT (Appeals) without providing opportunity ... grounds raised by the Department are devoid of merit. Our point-wise submissions are as follows : Ground No. 1.1 : Admission of Additional Evidence under Rule 46A  Ld. DR has contended that the ld. CIT (A) erred in admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.  However

Addl.CIT, Special Range-5, New Delhi vs. Janak Crane P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are allowed for

ITA 7978/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahayasstt. Yr: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 194A(1)Section 40Section 68

hearing dated 15.05.2018, neither the assessee nor its AR attended the hearing to explain its case for admission of additional evidences filed under rule 46A of I.T Rules. The hearing was /finally fixed on 25.05.2018. Again, on 25.05.2018 neither the assessee nor the AR attended the hearing as scheduled. This

Addl.CIT, Special Range-5, New Delhi vs. Janak Crane P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are allowed for

ITA 7977/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahayasstt. Yr: 2013-14

Section 144Section 194A(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 68

hearing dated, 15.05.2018, neither the assessee not its AR attended the hearing to explain its case for admission of additional evidence filed under rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. The hearing was finally fixed on 25.05.2018. Again on 25.05.2018, neither the assessee not the AR attended the hearing as scheduled

Janak Crane Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 13(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are allowed for

ITA 7378/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahayasstt. Yr: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 194A(1)Section 40Section 68

Janak Crane Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 13(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are allowed for

ITA 7377/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahayasstt. Yr: 2013-14

Section 144Section 194A(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 68

Income Tax Officer, Surat vs. Saffron Green International Private Limited, Surat

In the result, appeal of revenue is partly allowed

ITA 958/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.958/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 (Hybrid Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Saffron Green International Pvt. बनाम/ 2(1)(3), Surat, Room No.221, Ltd. Shop No.3008, Shree Mahavir Vs. 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Textiles Puna Kumbhariya Road, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 Surat-395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawcs 3137 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Deven K. Kapadia, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Aashish Pophare, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act’) Dated 16.07.2024 By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short, ‘The Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S. 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act On 21.03.2023. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: “I. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Restricting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Of Rs.5,70,70,621/- On Account Of 100% Bogus Purchase To 0.25% Of The Bogus Purchases & Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Ignoring The Facts That These Purchases Are Sham Transactions Fabricated Through Bogus Paper Concerns Of M/S. Savitri Trading Company & Mohammed Javed Mohammed Jabir Momin Which Were Engaged In Providing Accommodation Entries.

Section 147Section 250Section 250(2)

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. vi. 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. vii. On the basis of the facts and in circumstances of the case

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat vs. Surendran Nanoo, Kerala

ITA 821/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.821/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(2)Section 68

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. 4. 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. 5. On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case

Anil Kumar Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 834/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kanodia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250

Appeals), Kota, Camp at Jaipur, submitted some documentary evidences and 12 Anil Kumar Meena, Jaipur. requested admission of the same as additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (PB Pages 43-44). Service of notice is mandatory for jurisdiction and not a procedural irregularity as observed

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Kanpur vs. Shri.Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

accepted additional evidence without confronting ITA. No.139/LKW/2022 Page 25 of 158 it to the Assessing Officer and has thus violated the provisions of Rule 46A of the Rules. In this respect we find that there is no fresh evidence filed by assessee before learned CIT(A) other than a copy ... that such affidavit dated 28/09/2017 was executed indeed. Furthermore, we find that there is no application of assessee for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules.” 5.2 We find that the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that learned CIT(A) has not allowed relief

Mohd. Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur vs. Deputi Commissioner of Income Tax CC-2, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad vs. Late Sama Ramachandra Reddy L/R by His Wife Sama Yashodha, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are allowed

ITA 1611/HYD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar

Section 140ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 221(1)Section 249(4)

appeals on merit. He has further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has entertained the additional evidences filed by the assessee in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. He further argued that the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable

DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad vs. Late Sama Ramachandra Reddy L/R by His Wife Sama Yashodha, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are allowed

ITA 1065/HYD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar

Section 140ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 221(1)Section 249(4)