← 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

ACIT, Ncc-2, Madurai vs. Ganesan Anbuselvam, Thiruthangal

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3181/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3181/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

Rankin Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2022] 142 taxmann.com 37 (Mumbai-Trib.), the additional evidences, submitted by the appellant are admitted in terms of Rule 46A of I.T Rules 1962. The merits of the evidences & the report of the AO on merits of the issues shall be discussed while deciding grounds ... case was selected for scrutiny, and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) with the above additions. The ld.CIT(A) admitted additional evidences under Rule 46A and called for a remand report from the AO. In the remand proceedings, the AO accepted the assessee’s explanations and evidences. The ld.CIT

DCIT-15.1.2, Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan vs. Ispat Infrastructure India Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1502/MUM/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhaildeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax – 15(1)(2), Aayakar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020 V/S Ispat Infrastructure India Ltd., Office No.470 Central Facility Building, ……………… Respondent Phase – Ii, Sector 19 Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400705 Pan : Aabci0639P Assessee By : Shri Hemant Vora Revenue By : Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Hemant VoraFor Respondent: Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

also the ledger of all accounts receivable from parties which were treated as bad debts. The learned CIT(A), in compliance with Rule 46A of the Income Tax 3 Rules, 1962, forwarded the evidence received from the assessee to the AO and sought the remand report. After consideration

Income Tax Officer, New Delhi vs. Satish Kumar, New Delhi

ITA 2447/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2447/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Room No.217, 2Nd Floor, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi. बनाम Vs. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Revenue By सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: उद्घोषणाकीतारीख /Pronouncement On Satish Kumar X/1585, Rajgarh Colony, New Delhi. Pan No.Aнерк4309В Shri Pramod Jain, Ca & Shri Mukul Gupta, Adv. Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr 19.08.2025 26.09.2025 आदेश /Order Per C.N. Prasad, J.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi Dated 26.03.2024 For The Ay 2017-18 In Deleting The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act In Respect Of Cash Deposits Made During Demonetization Period. 2. Ld. Dr Made The Following Submissions: (I) The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In The Trading Of Ghee & Oil Under The Proprietorship M/S Phool Chand Hari Kishan. He Filed His Return Of Income On 26.10.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,58,120/- For The

Section 115BSection 68

additional evidences which was not produced during assessment proceedings despite repeated opportunities, and which were admitted in appellate proceedings without recording any satisfaction under Rule 46A(1) and without affording the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine or rebut the same through a remand report, thereby violating both the procedural ... mandate of Rule 46A and the principles of natural justice. 3 3. In view of the above, it is respectfully prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 4,44,39,480/- be set aside and the order of the Assessing Officer be restored

Ramesh Vishwakarma, Narsinghpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Narsinghpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 194/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18 Ramesh Vishwakarma V. Income Tax Officer H. No.175 Bhatera Gadarwara Ward, Narsinghpur Narsinghpur-487551. Trimurti Nagar Housing Borad Colony, Narsinghpur-487001, Madhya Pradesh. Pan:Aflpv6691L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, Ca Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69

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. The Ld. AO has grievously erred in law and or on facts in holding cash deposits to the extent

ITO, Sirsa vs. Sh. Mahabir Singh, Sirsa

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal of the Revenue

ITA 900/CHANDI/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 900/Chd/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Ito, Shri Mahabir Singh, Ward – 2, Vs S/O Shri Het Ram, Vpo Bani, Sirsa. Tehsil-Rania, Distt. Sirsa. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cdvpm5319N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vineet Krishan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148

Dissatisfied with the additions, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT (Appeals). The assessee has filed an application for additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. Such application was allowed by the CIT (Appeals) and ld. First Appellate Authority has called for a remand report

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. K K Ventura, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands

ITA 5331/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 260Section 68

additional documents were filed only for corroboration. The CIT(A), in considering them, has followed the due process. We thus see no violation of Rule 46A. 58. 5. In this context, it is also relevant to note that corroborative documents, such as updated ledgers or repayment schedules, when placed before ... unaccounted money. This burden has not been discharged. 63. We also find no merit in the allegation that there has been a violation of Rule 46A. The bulk of the evidences were already before the Assessing Officer, and whatever was additionally placed before the ld. CIT(A) was only

Bandaru Padmaja, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 468/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: The Tribunal. In Respect Of The Belated Filing Of The Appeal, The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit & The Relevant Contents Are Scanned & Pasted Herein Below:

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

additions, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed certain additional evidence citing Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Ld. CIT(A) remitted the additional evidence to the Ld. AO and sought for remand report

Income Tax Officer, W-2(1), Gvmc (Part), Visakhapatnam vs. Sathish Kumar Attada, Gvmc (Part), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 422/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.422/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2018-19) Vs. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) Sathish Kumar Attada Infinity Tower, 2Nd Floor Flat No. 506, Tsr Nri County 2 Range-2, Sankaramatam Road Srinivasanagar, Yendada-530020 Santhipuram, Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Akapa1392B] करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri I. Kama Sastry, Ca : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 19.08.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69

nothing to say in his Remand Report with respect to additional evidences and Ld.CIT(A) thereafter admitted the additional evidences under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, and allowed the appeal of the assessee by relying on the additional evidences submitted by the assessee. 5. On being aggrieved ... from the Assessing Officer on the additional evidence submitted by the assessee during the course of appeal proceedings, which is in violation of Rule 46A (3) of Income-tax Rules, 1962. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal in favour of the assessee merely taking into consideration

Whole Sale Cloth Merchant Association, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle Kota, Kota

ITA 962/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016
For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

objected admission of additional evidence. It is stated that the case of the assessee is not covered by the provisions of Rule 46A as conditions prescribed therein are not met in this case. It is therefore submitted that the additional evidences should not be admitted. The appellant has also ... explained how conditions prescribed in rule 46A are met in its case. Therefore, the additional evidences are not found to be admissible. Without prejudice to the above, in the absence of any bills and vouchers and also no confirmation filed even during the appellate and remand proceedings, the addition made

Whole Sale Cloth Merchant Association, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle Kota, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA No

ITA 961/JPR/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015
For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

objected admission of additional evidence. It is stated that the case of the assessee is not covered by the provisions of Rule 46A as conditions prescribed therein are not met in this case. It is therefore submitted that the additional evidences should not be admitted. The appellant has also ... explained how conditions prescribed in rule 46A are met in its case. Therefore, the additional evidences are not found to be admissible. Without prejudice to the above, in the absence of any bills and vouchers and also no confirmation filed even during the appellate and remand proceedings, the addition made

Rajnish Wellness Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

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

ITA 3471/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2018-19 Rajnish Wellness Limited, Income Tax Officer, 6Th Floor, Ward-5(3)(1), Navjivan Commercial, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Lamington Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008. Pan : Aahcr3491G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-09-2025 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 25-03-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Briefly The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Which Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny To Verify The Genuineness Of The Large Scale Promotion Expenses. Notices U/S. 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟) Were Issued Calling For The Necessary

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 37(1)

appeal and the appeal be admitted for adjudication. Further, the assessee has sought permission of the Ld. CIT(A) to furnish additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Rules. However, on perusal of the impugned order, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) without adjudicating upon the application so filed ... dismissed the appeal on account of non- prosecution. Further, there is no adjudication on the application seeking furnishing of the additional evidences under Rule 46A so filed by the assessee. 3 5. In light of the same, we deem it appropriate to set aside to the matter to the file

Acc India Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1) Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 4907/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaacit, Circle 1(1), Vs. Acc India Pvt. Ltd. 5Th Floor, 525, Basement, Room No. 159-A, C.R. Building, New Delhi Jasola, South Delhi, New Delhi -19 (Pan: Aalca9219Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 72/Del/2023 (Ita No. 650/Del/2020) (Ay 2015-16) Acc India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 1(1), 5Th Floor, 525, Basement, New Delhi Jasola, South Delhi, New Delhi-19 (Pan: Aalca9219Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Acc India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 1(1), 5Th Floor, 525, Basement, New Delhi Jasola, South Delhi, New Delhi-19 (Pan: Aalca9219Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr. Assesseeby : Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. Rajakumar, Adv.

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. Rajakumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

made on account of bogus expenses debited in the books of account by allowing the additional evidence in disregard to the Rule 46A of the I.T. Rule, 1962 as the case of the company is not covered under any of the circumstances as enumerated in Rule 46A ... difference in book balance of Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha and Sh. Bam Ram Mandal by allowing the additional evidence in disregard to the Rule 46A of the I.T. Rule, 1962 as the case of the company is not covered under any of the circumstances as enumerated in Rule 46A

ACIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi vs. Acc India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

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

ITA 650/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaacit, Circle 1(1), Vs. Acc India Pvt. Ltd. 5Th Floor, 525, Basement, Room No. 159-A, C.R. Building, New Delhi Jasola, South Delhi, New Delhi -19 (Pan: Aalca9219Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 72/Del/2023 (Ita No. 650/Del/2020) (Ay 2015-16) Acc India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 1(1), 5Th Floor, 525, Basement, New Delhi Jasola, South Delhi, New Delhi-19 (Pan: Aalca9219Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Acc India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 1(1), 5Th Floor, 525, Basement, New Delhi Jasola, South Delhi, New Delhi-19 (Pan: Aalca9219Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr. Assesseeby : Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. Rajakumar, Adv.

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. Rajakumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

made on account of bogus expenses debited in the books of account by allowing the additional evidence in disregard to the Rule 46A of the I.T. Rule, 1962 as the case of the company is not covered under any of the circumstances as enumerated in Rule 46A ... difference in book balance of Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha and Sh. Bam Ram Mandal by allowing the additional evidence in disregard to the Rule 46A of the I.T. Rule, 1962 as the case of the company is not covered under any of the circumstances as enumerated in Rule 46A

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Goldendunes Heights LLP, Jaipur

ITA 1352/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR a
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 68

from time to time. 5.2.1 Before deciding the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant the issue of admissibility of additional evidences filed under rule 46A of IT Rules. 1962 to be decided. In the instant case the appellant has filed additional evidences vide its letter dated 11.02.2022. The said ... documents. Now, after lot of persuasion and continuous follow up the same were obtained and filed as additional evidence along with application under rule 46A of IT Rules, 1962. 5.2.3 Remand report was called for from the AO vide letter dated 28.08.2024 with a direction to submit the report after

Devraj Vishwasrao Jadhav, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Satara

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

ITA 2213/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं / .Ita No.2213/Pun/2024 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Devraj Vishwasrao Ito, Ward-3, Satara Jadhav, R. No. 06, S. No. 24, Vs. Dreams Rhythm, Opposite Talathi Office, Bavdhan, Pune-411021 Maharashtra Pan-Aebpj6968F अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Dr. Prayag Jha Department By: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing: 23-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 08-09-2025 आदीश/Order Per Dr. Manish Borad:- This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 11.09.2024 Which Is Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 147 Of The Act Dated 14.03.2023. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering The Arguments & Submissions Made By The Assessee & Dismissing All The Grounds Taken In Appeal. 2. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating That The Ld Assessing Officer Had Not Served On The Assessee The Statutory Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The It Act & Therefore, The Impugned Order Was Passed Without Jurisdiction.

For Appellant: Dr. Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68Section 69A

utilized for the cash deposits made in the Bank Accounts. 9. We therefore under the given facts and circumstances of the case and considering rule 46A of the income tax rules, hereby admit the additional evidences filed by the assessee and further since the additional evidences needs to be examined

Income Tax Officer-42(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Kartik Gunwantrai Shah, Mumbai

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

ITA 2182/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailincome Tax Officer – 42(1)(3), Room No.735, 7Th Floor Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400051 V/S Kartik Gunwantrai Shah, Prop. Gati Solvochem, B-3, Jalaram, Ganjawala Lane, ……………… Respondent Borivali (West), Mumbai - 400092 Pan : Awaps4637D Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Vikas Chandra, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Chandra, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 46A

During the appellate proceedings before the learned Additional / Joint CIT(A), the assessee filed additional evidence and prayed for consideration of the same under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Accordingly, the learned Additional / Joint CIT(A), following the procedure prescribed under section 46A of the Income

Jyoti Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi

In the result, ground no. 5 of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4983/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं.4983/िद"ी/2018 (िन.व. 2014-15) Jyoti Jain, 25/94, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi 110007 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan No: Adipj-0775-G बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 19(2), New Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta & Ms. Vanshika Mehta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 54F

substantiate expenditure incurred on construction of a residential house, the assessee furnished additional evidences before the CIT(A) and filed application under Rule 46A for admissions of additional evidences. This fact is emanating from the impugned order para 3.1 where the submissions of the assessee are recorded ... assessee had filed application dated 25.09.2017 under Rule 46A for the admission of additional evidences pertaining to investment of Rs.1,51,74,950/- towards construction of house on plot no. 5/21 Roop Nagar, Delhi. The assessee has raised a specific ground of appeal i.e. ground no. 11 before

Sher Singh, Sangrur vs. Income Tax Officer, Sangrur

ITA 749/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Soni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 11BSection 144Section 234ASection 234BSection 69ASection 69a

supporting evidence of agricultural landholding and milk business, which were material to adjudication and were duly supported by judicial precedents permitting admission under Rule 46A. 6. That the appellant craves the right to add, alter, or amend any ground of appeal before or during the course of hearing 7. That ... both the AO and the CIT(A) have mechanically brushed aside the evidence. In fact, once the Ld. CIT(A) admitted additional evidence under Rule 46A, the same had to be given full weightage. Reliance was placed on decisions including Tek Ram (Dead) Through

Late Sh. Lakha Singh Through Legal Heir Hira Singh Dera Pyara Singh Barna Thanesar Kurukshetra, Kurukshetra vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Aaykar Bhawan, Near Community Hall Sector-5, Kurukshetra Haryana, Kurukshetra

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

ITA 1151/CHANDI/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

best judgment assessment, denial of natural justice, and challenge to additions on merits. The legal heir also sought to file additional evidence under Rule 46A, citing the advanced age and ill- health of the assessee which prevented proper compliance during assessment proceedings. 4.1 The Ld. CIT(A), despite being informed ... merits, the CIT(A) declined to admit the additional evidence, holding that the assessee had not shown sufficient cause within the framework of Rule 46A. Relying on judicial precedents such as CIT v. Manish Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi HC) and ITO v. Fairdia Foundation (Cal HC), the CIT(A) observed

ITO, Ward-17(1), New Delhi, Delhi vs. Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Delhi

ITA 43/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 69A

HHEC and copy of delivery challans dated 15.07.2015 and 17.07.2015 in support of his claim which were forwarded to AO for examination under Rule 46A. This amount of purchase also seems to tally with the details gathered during the survey as observed from the statement of appellant recorded during