“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

Income Tax Officer, Gangtok vs. Krishna Prasad, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross-objection of the assessee where he has asking that addition is required to be deleted stands also dismissed

ITA 1406/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2018-19 Ito, Ward-3(1), Gangtok Krishna Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Palas Chattopadhay, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Sarkar, Sr. DR- JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 251(1)(a)

have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue shows that the reasons raised in Rule 46A(3) of the I.T. Rules, this relates to the admission of additional evidence. It is very clear that the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment

Yunus Mahemud Patel, Latur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Latur

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 450/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Rs.25,08,000/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order, Assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Assessee filed additional evidences before ld.CIT(A). As per Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 the ld.CIT(A) forwarded the documents filed by Assessee to the Assessing Officer. Assessing Officer filed his report

U. Karthiyayini, ITO, Cw 5(1)(I/C), Chennai vs. Peacock Hospitals Pvt Ltd, Tituttani

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1749/CHNY/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1749/ Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

admitted additional evidence without recording any reason and without affording the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine the documents, as mandated under Rule 46A(3) of the Income-tax ITA No.1749/ Chny/2025 Peacock Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. :- 4 -: Rules, 1962. The Ld. DR therefore requested that the matter be restored

Shreesh Kumar Tripathi, Banda vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2)(5), Banda

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

ITA 111/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Shreesh Kumar Tripathi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-44, Avas Vikash Colony Head Ward-2(2)(5), Banda Post-Banda 210001, U.P. Pan:Agrpt7458C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Mamta Pandey, Adv Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2025 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 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 28.03.2025, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Orders Of The Ito, Ward-2(2)(5), Banda Passed On 22.12.2019, Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “A. Because The Appellant Authority Has Failed To Provide Fair, Real & Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard, In The Form-35 Petitioner Clearly Mentioned That Notices/Communication May Not Be Send On Email Mode. In This Case No Notice For Hearing Has Been Issued In Physical Mode. B. Because The Learned Assessing Officer As Well As Commissioner (Appeals) Has Passed The Order Based On Incorrect Appreciation Of Facts, Leading To An Erroneous Conclusion. C. Because Assessment Order As Well As Order-In-Appeal Has Been Passed In Ex-Parte Manner Without Giving Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. D. Because The Findings Recorded In The Impugned Order Are Contrary To The Material Evidence Available On Record, Resulting In A Flawed Assessment. E. Because Appellant Was Not Aware About The Issuance Of Notices At The Proceedings Stage Because He Got Registered Himself After Order Passed By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Ms. Mamta Pandey, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250

received any opportunity of personal hearing neither at proceedings stage nor at first appellate stage. h. BECAUSE additional evidences produced by the appellant under Rule 46A has not been considered by the appellant authority at the first appellate proceedings in arbitrary manner which is against the principle of natural justice ... been able to demonstrate the sufficient causes for not presenting the same before the ld. AO. Relying on the provisions of Rule 46A, he held that the said evidences filed by the assessee were not admissible at this stage. He noted that the assessee had deposited cash in his bank

Deputy Commiossioner of Incometax, Jamnagar vs. Vasantbhai Muljibhai Kanani, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed, whereas appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.124/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Dy. Cit, Cir-1 Vasantbhai Muljibhai Kanani बनाम Jamnagar. Plot No.7, Ambica Enterprise Vs. Sardar Patel Ind. Estte-4 Indira Road Opp: Jakat Naka, Jamnagar-361004 (Guj) Pan : Aitpk 8038 P आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.08/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Vasantbhai Muljibhai Kanani Dy. Cit, Cir-1 बनाम Plot No.7, Ambica Enterprise Jamnagar. Sardar Patel Ind. Estte-4 Vs. Indira Road Opp: Jakat Naka, Jamnagar- 361004 (Guj) Pan : Aitpk 8038 P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, ld.AR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 68Section 69C

submitted by assessee before CIT(A), without granting the Assessing Officer a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence, thereby violating the procedure prescribed in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on the facts and in law in restricting the addition ... Revenue, argued that the assessee has produced additional evidences during the appellate proceedings, therefore, it is a complete violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The ld. DR submitted that since the assessee has submitted additional evidence during the appellate proceedings, therefore, this issue may be restored

Trigat Life Sciences Private Limited, Lucknow vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -6, Lucknow

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

ITA 190/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Trigat Life Sciences Private Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 301, 3Rd Floor, Kusum Deep Income Tax-6, Lucknow New Complex Chowk, Lucknow, U.P. Pan:Aacct7404N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 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 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 27.02.2025, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Dcit, Circle-6, Lucknow, Under Section 143(3) On 27.11.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order, Which Is Unlawful, Unjustified & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order Without Giving Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard. 3. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order With Intangible Addition Of 50 Percent Sales Promotion Expenses Of Rs 7188348 On Estimated Basis. 4. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing Assessment Order Which Is Contrary To The Facts & Law.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250

given to Doctors and retail traders and other incentives given to large purchasers of medicines and prayed that the same may be admitted under Rule 46A. However, the Ld. CIT(A) found that the assessee had failed to substantiate the claim with valid reasons and failed to explain why these ... material on record makes it clear that no attempt was made before the ld. AO or shows no regard to follow the requirement of Rule 46A, the additional evidence could not be admitted. Furthermore, he pointed out that the Hon’ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Mrs. Jyotsna Suri

Mahinder Pal, Mandi vs. Income Tax Officer, Mandi

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

ITA 916/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 916/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mahinder Pal, The Ito, Mahinder Fruit Company, Vs Mandi. Chail Chowk, Mandi. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Avgpp5393J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate With Ms. Isha Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Isha Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 69A

additional evidence which was rejected by the First Appellate Authority on the ground that assessee did not file a A.Y.2018-19 3 proper application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Act. The ld. CIT (Appeals) took note of this aspect in paragraph No. 5.4 page ... Appeals) has just rejected the contention of the assessee only for the reason that there was no proper application by the assessee under Rule 46A. If there was some procedure lacuna, then that ought to be confronted to the assessee, so that this ambiguity could be removed but for minor

Late Satishkumar Bhagatram Chadha Through L/H Mayur Satishkumar Chadha, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Pune

In the result, Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1327/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

accordingly. 4.2 It is also noted that the Ld.CIT(A) has not provided copy of the Remand Report filed by the Assessing Officer under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules to the Legal Heirs of the deceased assessee 3 to rebut the findings of the AO. It is violation

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Kolhapur vs. Ajara Merchants Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Ajara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1693/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1138 & 1693/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Ito, Ward-1(1), Kolhapur. Vs. Ajara Merchants Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Main Branch, Nalawade Building, Main Road, Ajara, Kolhapur- 416505. Pan : Aadca1779J Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.03.2024 & 13.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Quantum Appeal I.E Ita No.1138/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. Shingte

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271FSection 69

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not giving reasonable opportunity to the Assessing Officer as per Rule 46A of the income Tax Act to examine the evidence or document produced by the assessee and completed the appellate proceedings without waiting for the submission ... parte assessment order. 8. Ld. DR further submitted that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in accepting documents submitted by the assessee in contravention of Rule 46A of the IT Act since without waiting for remand report called from the AO the appellate order was passed. 9. Ld. DR ultimately submitted

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Kolhapur vs. Ajara Merchants Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Ajara, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1138/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. Shingte

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271FSection 69

Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Kolkata vs. Expression Novelties Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed while the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are also dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1351/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

without asking for remand report from the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and thus violating the provisions of Rule 46A of the 1.T. Rules. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts

Nibedita Deb Barma, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 60(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 578/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Aug 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 578/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Nibedita Deb Barma,……………….…………..…Appellant 30/7B, Doctor Lane, Taltala, Kolkata-700014 [Pan:Adipd1863D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………..…………..Respondent Ward-60(2), Kolkata, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Bamboo Villa, Kolkata-700014 Appearances By: Shri Ankit Jalan, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Sr. D.R., Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 25, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 27, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

Rs.5,03,490/- made by the Ld. A.O. invoking the provision of section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in light of rule 46A treating the submission of the appellant as additional evidences whereas the relevant documents were submitted before the Ld. A.O. at the time of assessment proceedings ... payments made for the property. He further submitted that the assessee has filed additional evidence before the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Since the assessee failed to produce the said additional evidence before the assessment proceedings but the ld. Addl./JCIT

Baijunda Electronics Pvt Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1)(1), Noida

In the result, the Appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed for

ITA 997/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrabaijunda Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit B-5, Sector 065 Circle 5(1)(1) Gautam Buddha Nagar G. B. Nagar Noida-201301 Noida Pan: Aahcb053Ih

Section 144Section 144B

challenging the assessment order dated 18/12/2022. The Assessee has also filed an application before the Ld. CIT(A) for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Ld. CIT(A) after obtaining the Remand 2 Baijunda Electroncis Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT Report from ... order has been passed ex-parte and the Ld. CIT(A) committed error in rejecting the application for admission of additional evidence filed under Rule 46A of the Rules. Thus, submitted that the orders impugned of the Lower Authorities are in violation of principals of natural justice. Therefore, sought

Income Tax Officer Ward 52(1) New Delhi, New Delhi vs. M/S Novel Infratech, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 188/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarito, Vs. M/S. Novel Infratech, Ward-52(1), Flat No. 915, Indra Prakash New Delhi Building, 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aajfn0187A

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

that they have provided bogus loans to assessee or any other parties. 7. Before the ld CIT(A), the assessee filed additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules as under:- 1. Reg: LOAN FROM SH NAKUL AGGARWAL: (i) Copy of Form 26AS of the Loanee

Ajooba Water World Private Limited vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Fbd

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1293/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

Hence, left with no other option, the assessee furnished all those documents and evidences as additional evidences before the NFAC under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules by a detailed paper book together with the valuation report using NAV method in terms of Rule 11UA of the Income ... order of NFAC, there is no mentioning of assessee filing the complete details in the form of detailed paperwork as additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The assessee indeed vide letter dated 18.06.2022, had made a request before the ld NFAC to admit the additional evidences

Ajooba Water World Private Limited vs. ITO Ward -1(1), Fbd

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1292/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

ACIT, Circle-49(1), New Delhi vs. Pradeep Patil, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2671/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2671/Del/2022 (A.Y 2017-18) Acit Vs Pradeep Patil Circle-49(1) 306, Gold Plaza Building, Room No. 1505, E-2 Block, Gurudwara Road, Dr.Spm Civic Centre, Karol Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Baipp4632G

Section 143(3)Section 68

concentrated exactly before the demonetization period [01.10.2016 to 8.11.2016]. 5.The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the assessee to produce/adduce additional evidence under rule 46A when none of the conditions laid down in clause (a), (b), (c), or (d) of sub-rule (1) of rule 46A were satisfied ... error in admitting the additional evidence during the first appellate proceedings as the Assessee has not satisfied any of the conditions laid down in Rule 46A(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, thus submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) committed error in deleting the addition made

DCIT, CC-30, New Delhi vs. Rajan Sharma, New Delhi

ITA 2441/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 153A

rejoinder wherein he has submitted that the sufficient cause of not filing additional evidences during the assessment proceedings has been duly explained in the Rule 46A application, however, the AO has not made any specific remark doubting the same. Further, with respect to the merits of the additional evidences also

DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Rajan Sharma, Delhi

ITA 2120/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 153A

DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Rajan Sharma, Delhi

ITA 2119/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 153A