← 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

India Construction, Diamond Harbour vs. ITO, Ward - 25(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2592/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133(6)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

The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1, Vadodara vs. Pawan Edifice Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara

Appeals are partly allowed for

ITA 529/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 68Section 80G

Rs.15,16,966/- made by the AO on account of difference in cost of land relying upon the receipt of revenue dehorse provisions of Rule 46A of IT. Rules and despite the fact that the assessee has failed to prove that the claim of expenses of Rs.16 ... basis of fresh and additional evidences in the form of bank statements submitted by the assessee, dehorse provisions of Rule 46A of I.T. Rules and without calling remand report. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

Pawan Edifice Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Vadodara

Appeals are partly allowed for

ITA 478/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 68Section 80G

Rs.15,16,966/- made by the AO on account of difference in cost of land relying upon the receipt of revenue dehorse provisions of Rule 46A of IT. Rules and despite the fact that the assessee has failed to prove that the claim of expenses of Rs.16 ... basis of fresh and additional evidences in the form of bank statements submitted by the assessee, dehorse provisions of Rule 46A of I.T. Rules and without calling remand report. . On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting

Pawan Edifice Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Vadodara

ITA 477/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 68Section 80G

Rs.15,16,966/- made by the AO on account of difference in cost of land relying upon the receipt of revenue dehorse provisions of Rule 46A of IT. Rules and despite the fact that the assessee has failed to prove that the claim of expenses of Rs.16 ... basis of fresh and additional evidences in the form of bank statements submitted by the assessee, dehorse provisions of Rule 46A of I.T. Rules and without calling remand report. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

Basanth Lal Sah, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

ITA 612/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Us :

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

from the subject parties. The assessee, vide his letter dated 26.03.2025, requested the CIT(A) for admission of certain documents as additional evidence under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962, viz., (i). the copy of invoices and e-way bills; (ii). copy of bank account statements ... contentions advanced by the assessee, and also the application filed by him seeking admission of certain documentary evidence as additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, observed that the copies of the invoices and e-way bills had already been filed by the assessee

Naval Kishor Mundra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed for

ITA 4200/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 69

decide the matter afresh after considering the voluminous additional evidence presented by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) under rule 46A. Ld. CIT(A) further observed that since the assessment order was passed ex-parte by the AO, therefore in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given ... furnished voluminous detail and documents against the additions made by the AO. The appellant has also requested to accept additional evidences under rule 46A. All the documents filed by the appellant were not furnished before the AO during the assessment proceedings, therefore these details and documents require to be examined

Rajesh Karsanbhai Patel, Thane vs. DCIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No

ITA 2092/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 153a

addition. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee appealed before the CIT (A) and filed an application for additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules submitting necessary evidences. However, the ld. CIT (A) sustained the order of the Assessing Officer. We have gone through

Karsanbhai Khimabhai Patel, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No

ITA 1574/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 153a

addition. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee appealed before the CIT (A) and filed an application for additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules submitting necessary evidences. However, the ld. CIT (A) sustained the order of the Assessing Officer. We have gone through

Karsanbhai Khimabhai Patel, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circke-17, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No

ITA 1573/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 153a

addition. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee appealed before the CIT (A) and filed an application for additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules submitting necessary evidences. However, the ld. CIT (A) sustained the order of the Assessing Officer. We have gone through

Bsc C&C Jv, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-62(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4546/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Bsc C&C Joint Venture, Vs. Acit, 74, Hemkunt Colony, Circle-62(1), New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadfb8115G Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

assessee with respect to claim of deduction under section 80 IA(4)(i) of the Act. The assessee also furnished additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules in support of the claim of deduction under section 80 IA(4) of the Act before the Learned CITA ... fulfilled the conditions prescribed in section 80 IA(4) of the Act and also M/s. BSC C&C Joint Venture filed additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) in support of its claim of deduction under section

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 Tps, Aluva, Income Tax Office vs. Cijo Joseph, Angamaly

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 608/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 69A

hearing the learned DR stated that impugned order passed by CIT(A) is bad in law and CIT did not call remand report under rule 46A of the act by allowing appeal of the assessee. Therefore the impugned order passed by CIT (A) needs to be set aside by upholding

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 Tps, Aluva, Income Tax Office vs. Cijo Joseph, Angamaly

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 604/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 69A

hearing the learned DR stated that impugned order passed by CIT(A) is bad in law and CIT did not call remand report under rule 46A of the act by allowing appeal of the assessee. Therefore the impugned order passed by CIT (A) needs to be set aside by upholding

Kulbir Singh, Sabji Mandi Tarn Taran vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Tarn Taran, Income Tax Officer Ward Tarn Taran

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

ITA 301/ASR/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Aug 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: None
Section 147Section 250

records and other particulars are being produced and has prayed 3 I.T.A. No. 301/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 for admission of the same under rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962. But it has been observed by the ld. first appellate authority that the documents are not uploaded

Ratnakar Manikrao Gutte, Gangakhed vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal

ITA 6106/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant& Shri Pawan Singhit(Ss)A No. 60/Mum/2025 (Ay: 2013-14) (Hybridhearing)

Section 254(1)Section 69B

delete the same. 6) Without prejudice to above grounds, the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidences filed by the assessee as per Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, which are very important for determining the taxability of impugned amount. Hence, it is prayed that order

Rajesh Singh Negi, Nanital vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3)(1) Nanital, Nanital

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 92/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Rajesh Singh Negi, Ward-2(3)(1), House No.50, Vs. Nanital. Jind State, Ward No.3, Nainital, Uttarakhand-263136 Pan-Aakpn3462D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Saurabh Gupta, Ca Department By Shri Aman Pal Singh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/08/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘The Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short) In Appeal No. Nfac/2016-17/10008911 Dated 13.08.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, From The Perusal Of The Appellate Order, It Is Seen That The Appeal Is Filed Delayed By 193 Days, For Which Delay Condonation Petition Along With An Affidavit Of Assessee Is Filed. In The Said Petition It Is Stated That The Assessee Was Under Bonafide Rajesh Singh Negi Vs. Ito Impression That The Counsel Of The Assessee Who Was Handling The Appeal Was Taken Care Of The Appellate Proceedings. However, Counsel Had Not Communicated The Status Of The Appeal, Therefore & When The Assessee Pursued Him, It Has Come To The Knowledge That The Appeal Was Already Dismissed Ex-Parte By Ld. Cit(A). Thus, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal Had Occurred. It Was Further Submitted That The Delay Was Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate & Solely Due To The Failure On The Part Of The Counsel To Communicate The Status & Out Come Of The Appeal Before Cit(A) In Timely Manner, Therefore, The Assessee Requested For Condonation Of Delay. In This Regard Reliance Is Also Placed In The Case Of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 Scc 123 (Sc) & Collector Of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 Itr 471 (Sc).

proceedings, the assessee though filed the submissions alongwith relevant evidences, however, Ld. CIT(A) has not admitted such details as no separate petition under Rule 46A was filed by the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the assessee by confirming the additions made by AO. Looking to the nature

Amitkumar Navnitbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 984/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.984/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Amitkumar Navnitbhai Patel The Acit बनाम/ A/1-1, Madhav Apartment Circle 2(1)(1) V/S. Opp. Municipal Garden Ahmedabad – 380 015 Vasna Ahmedabad – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Amppp 5605 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

remained uncomplied. Along with the written submission dated 12.11.2021, all relevant documents were filed before the learned CIT(A), together with an application under Rule 46A seeking admission of additional evidence. The AR also pointed out that the learned CIT(A), before passing the impugned order, called for a remand

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2905/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Ms.Ann Marry Baby, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 92B

business purpose, he has allowed the claim. In the aforesaid back ground, we are of the view that the question of violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 as alleged by the Ld.DR for Revenue, does not arise since the grounds of appeal nowhere has challenged

High Voit Electicals P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Palghar

In the result, the appeal

ITA 4461/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 High Volt Electricals P. Ltd., Ito Ward 1, J,46, Midc Tarapur, Boisar, S.O. Mqp8+5Q3, Amba Wadi, Salwad, Boisar-401 506. Vs. Palghar-401 404. Pan No. Aabfh 1723 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Prateek JainFor Respondent: Mr. Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Sr. DR
Section 142Section 147Section 148

received from the AO. As per the 14 was received from the AO. As per the AO, the circumstances referred to in Rule 46A for producing AO, the circumstances referred to in Rule 46A for producing AO, the circumstances referred to in Rule 46A for producing additional evidence have

Shubhaprada Chit Funds Private Limited, Zaheerabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Sangareddy, Telangana

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the A

ITA 806/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunagha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.805 & 806 /Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2017-18 & 2018-19) Shubhaprada Chit Funds Vs. Income Tax Officer (P) Ltd Ward – 1 Zaheerabad Sangareddy Pan:Aawcs8445G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Vinodh Kannan, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-

For Appellant: Shri K.A Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Vinodh Kannan, Sr.AR
Section 69A

confirming the disallowance of Rs.13,35,883/- towards director's remuneration by rejecting crucial evidences furnished during appellate proceedings solely for want of a Rule 46A petition, especially when such evidences were essential to establish the genuineness of the expenditure and ought to have been admitted in the interest ... that the additional evidence filed before the learned CIT (A) were rejected on the ground that the assessee has not filed the petition under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal

Shubhaprada Chit Funds Private Limited, Zaheerabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Sangareddy

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the A

ITA 805/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunagha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.805 & 806 /Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2017-18 & 2018-19) Shubhaprada Chit Funds Vs. Income Tax Officer (P) Ltd Ward – 1 Zaheerabad Sangareddy Pan:Aawcs8445G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Vinodh Kannan, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-

For Appellant: Shri K.A Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Vinodh Kannan, Sr.AR
Section 69A

confirming the disallowance of Rs.13,35,883/- towards director's remuneration by rejecting crucial evidences furnished during appellate proceedings solely for want of a Rule 46A petition, especially when such evidences were essential to establish the genuineness of the expenditure and ought to have been admitted in the interest ... that the additional evidence filed before the learned CIT (A) were rejected on the ground that the assessee has not filed the petition under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal