“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

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

ITA 2118/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

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 2117/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 153A

Shiv Hari Singla, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - (1), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1277/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

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

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

that during the appellate proceedings, assessee filed more details to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors in terms of the application under Rule 46A filed before ld. CIT(A) on 23.08.2016. Ld. CIT(A) admitted the evidences so filed and remand report was called for from

ACIT, Circle-33(1), New Delhi vs. Lucky Exports, New Delhi

Accordingly ground nos. 1 and 2 are dismissed

ITA 7113/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. P. Roy Chaudhuri, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Suman Malik, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)

Republic of Benin and the actual rendering of the services has not been proved. As stated earlier, the appellant has filed additional evidence under Rule 46A vide which the copies of the correspondence between the appellant and the commission agents has been furnished. This correspondence alongwith the other documents

ITO, Ward- 18(1), New Delhi vs. Nester Trading Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 5684/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 148Section 68

details and submission adduced by the assessee during appellate proceedings even when the assessee has not fulfilled conditions as laid down under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rule, 1962 (the Rule) and without providing opportunity of being heard to the AO? 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, Amend ... company and further allowed appeal on the basis of the material placed by the assessee during appellate proceeding even non fulfilment of condition under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 without providing opportunity of being heard to the Learned AO. 4. From the perusal of record, it reveals

ACIT, Circle-33(1), New Delhi vs. Lucky Exports, New Delhi

Accordingly ground nos. 1 and 2 are dismissed

ITA 5502/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. P. Roy Chaudhuri, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Suman Malik, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)

Ganesh Kumar Paidi, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Vijayawada

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 135/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250

been made through proper banking channel. The appellant may please be permitted to furnish the additional evidence prays the same may be admitted under rule 46A of the Income Tax Act. 9. The assessing officer has not considered the above said factors and considered the entire deposits as unexplained cash

Sangamner Medical Foundation and Research Institute, Ahmednagar vs. Exemption Circle Aurangabad, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 900/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva

Section 115BSection 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80G

appellant submitted another list containing the addresses of these parties (pages 338 to 582 of the filed paper book) as additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The assessing officer, in his remand report, noted that they had randomly selected 120 of the parties and issued notices

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune, Swargate vs. Grant Medical Foundation, Pune

In the result the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2352/PUN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

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

Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 250

appellate proceedings. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to follow the provisions of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 wherein it is laid down that the CIT/DC (Appeals) shall not take into account any evidence produced under ... ld.DR : 4. Ld.DR for the revenue submitted that the MOU was never submitted during the assessment proceedings hence the CIT(A) has violated Rule 46A by admitting the new evidence without recording reasons and without providing opportunity to the Assessing Officer. DR strongly relied on the Assessment Order. Findings &Analysis

Starpoint Vinimay Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Ward-1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 340/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 5

being heard to the assessee and also grant an opportunity of representing the case and be heard to the Ld. AO as per rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, if required, and thereby pass an order in accordance with law. For statistical purposes, the grounds of appeal

Shri. Ganesh Agencies, Bidar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bidar

In the result both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1829/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Subramaniam, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69

evidences produced by the assessee during the appellate proceedings and present his findings through the remand report, so appellate order is in violation of rule 46A (3) of The Income Tax Rules 1962. Thus, the AO’s grievance is deletion of the addition without allowing him and opportunity to contest ... learned CIT – A has deleted the addition without confronting the facts to the assessing officer which is mandatory in terms of the provisions of rule 46A of the income- tax rules. 10. Contesting the appeal of the revenue, the learned authorised representative relied upon the orders of the learned

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bidar vs. Shri Ganesh Agencies, Bidar

In the result both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1476/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Subramaniam, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69

Ritesh Aggarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO - 16(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statisti...

ITA 200/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal, Ito-16(3)(3), D 704, Imperial Heights Best Colony Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Road, Goregaon West, Opp. Vs. Karve Road, New Marine Lines, Goregaon Fire Bridge, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400104. Pan No. Aadpa 6828 R Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Nishit Gandhi

Section 143(3)Section 147

form of the allotment letter and payment schedule; evidence in the form of the allotment letter and payment schedule; however, the procedure prescribed under Rule 46A of the Income- however, the procedure prescribed under Rule 46A of th however, the procedure prescribed under Rule 46A of th tax Rules ... before the learned CIT(A) but not c admittedly tendered before the learned CIT(A) but not c accordance with the procedure mandated by Rule 46A of the accordance with the procedure mandated by Rule 46A of the accordance with the procedure mandated by Rule 46A of the Income

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Guwahati, Assam vs. Assam Power Distribution Company Limited, Guwahati

The appeal is allowed and questions Nos

ITA 159/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Itat) Was On Or Before. However, The Appeal Was Filed Before The Hon'Ble

Section 250

admitting the additional evidences or documents produced by the assessee for which no opportunity was given to the Assessing Officer to examine under Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules 1961. 3. The appellant craves leaves to add, alter and amend any of the grounds of appeal at time ... default of repayment of instalments. The Ld. DR also pointed out that while the Ld. CIT(A) has clearly accepted new evidence under Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962 (hereafter “the Rules”), but the same was not shared with the Ld. AO for his comments and investigation as would

Ayush Abhay Jain, Khandwa vs. Ward 1 Khandwa, Khandwa

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 641/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 144Section 68

spiral book on 18.08.2025 containing a copy of the application and the 'additional evidences' filed by assessee to CIT(A) in terms of Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962 (as per liberty given by bench during hearing). - 6. At that juncture, Ld. DR for revenue submitted that having regard

Darshana Dave, Kanpur vs. ITO, Ward 1(3)(5), Kanpur, DCIT, CPC

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 189/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ms. Darshana Dave V. The Ito 14/75, Civil Lines Ward 1(3)(5) Kanpur (U.P) Kanpur Tan/Pan:Ahepd2111L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 07.02.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 14.09.2017, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.7,91,625/-, Claiming Long Term Capital Loss Of Rs.8,69,268/-. The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc), Bangalore Processed The Return Of The Assessee Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) & Passed An Order Dated 11.01.2019, Computing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.34,46,712/-, Thereby Raising A Demand Of Rs.9,59,106/- As Against The Refund Of Rs.39,250/- Computed By The Assessee. Against This Order, The Assessee Filed

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80C

order being Incorrect be quashed. 4. That the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law by disregarding the principals laid down under rule 46A(3) in as much as, no remand report in response to the petition u/r 46A filed by the assessee has been sought, hence

Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Aadinath Developers, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 689/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None

Section 144Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 68Section 80

provided by the Assessing Officer to the assessee to produce their submissions. Further, the assessee requested for admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1961. In light of these facts and in view of amendment to Section 251 vide Finance

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Endurance Technoligies Limited, Aurangabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 506/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak andFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80I

NFAC referred to the grounds raised by the Revenue and submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has violated the provisions of Rule 46A of the IT Rules. Referring to the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Ajeet Seeds Ltd. reported

Rajkumar Parshuram Mhatre, Poynad vs. Assessing Officer, Ward Panvel

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

ITA 1764/PUN/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ronak H JainFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 68

NFAC the assessee furnished certain additional evidences. However, in absence of any formal request for admission of the additional evidences under Rule 46A(1) of the I T Rules, 1962, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC did not accept the same and upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer ... addition of ₹20,96,225/- made under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 solely on the basis of non-filing of Rule 46A to admit additional evidences hence denial of admission of evidence amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Relief may please be granted

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Endurance Technologies Limited, Aurangabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1663/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak andFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80I