“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

Ammati Venkatachalapathisetty Satish Kumar, Chintamani vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikkaballapur

ITA 2040/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheettal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 250Section 44A

documents and explanations termed as “new” in the remand report were already filed before the learned CIT(A) on 25.10.2019 as additional evidence under Rule 46A of Income tax Rules. Hence, they were part of the record and not afterthoughts. The bank account details were duly disclosed in the return

Ammati Venkatachalapathisetty Satish Kumar, Chintamani vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikkaballapur

ITA 2039/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: 03.02.2026

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 250Section 44A

Bihari Parmanand Kandhari, Mumbai vs. Aci, Circle -23(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7925/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Respondent: Mr. Akshay Jain

Section 56(2)

sufficient cause" that the assessee had failed to satisfy the "sufficient cause" that the assessee had failed to satisfy the "sufficient cause" threshold under Rule 46A. The Ld. CIT(A) reasoned that since the le 46A. The Ld. CIT(A) reasoned that since the le 46A ... reproduced as under: Bihari Parmanand Kandhari Bihari Parmanand Kandhari “5.3.2.1 It is fur 5.3.2.1 It is further submitted that Rule 46A conditions not met. ther submitted that Rule 46A conditions not met. The AO did not deny admission of this evidence. The assessee The AO did not deny admission

Income Tax Officer, Mathura vs. Mathura Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., Naugheel, Bajana Road

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 455/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra20 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year : 2018-19 Income Tax Officer V Mathura Zila Sahakari Bank Radhika Vihar, Ltd. Mathura - 281 001 Naugheel, Bajana Road, Mathura - 281 203 Pan : Aadam1090J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 250

additional document in the form of copy of acknowledgement of letter with regard to surrendering of PAN Cards without providing opportunity to AO under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 5. We have perused the records. Heard learned representatives for the appellant revenue ... admitting the acknowledgment of letter with regard to surrendering of said PAN card (additional evidence) without affording an opportunity to AO in view of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rule, 1962. 7. Learned DR for the appellant revenue has submitted that assessee did not file the said acknowledgment of letter

Chetanbhai Sardarsinh Parmar, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 192/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 69A

Aggrieved against the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, assessee filed additional documents invoking Rule 46A. Ld. CIT(A) called for a Remand Report from the assessing officer. The A.O. vide his letter dated 03-05-2024 submitted his Remand Report

Linkpoint Infrastructure Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1477/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 36(2)

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

DCIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Modern Veer Rays Security Force (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7886/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardcit Circle-2(2)(1) Modern Veer Rays Room No. 417, 4Th Security Force (India) Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pvt. Ltd. Churchgate, M. K. 6Th Floor, Atlanta Road, Mumbai- Centre, Sonawala 400 020 Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400 063 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm3692H (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Assessee By Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ld. Ar Date Of Hearing 19.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2026

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 38

granted relief without calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer despite relying upon revised audit report and other supporting documents, thereby violating Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services ... based on audit report entries and the assessee had no opportunity to explain the factual position before CPC. Therefore, there is no violation of Rule 46A. It was further contended that once it is 6 Modern Veer Rays Security Force (India) Pvt. Ltd demonstrated on facts that there

Vithal Leasefin(P) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle Ward 1(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7745/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 142Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

dismissed the appeal assuming that additional evidences were filed at the time of appeal proceedings and no application was filed under Rule 46A under Income-tax Rules, 1962. 3) The appellant reserves right to add, alter or withdraw any grounds of appeal." 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee

DCIT-13(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Oracle Financial Services Software Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 3995/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal, () Ι.Τ.Α. No. 3432/Mum/2019

Section 14A

assessee's list of sixteen comparables, with her own five comparables, without giving cogent reasons and without giving opportunity to the TPO, thus violating Rule 46A? 3.17 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, without prejudice, after having taken the assessee as the tested party

Oracle Financial Services Software Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-13(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3432/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal, () Ι.Τ.Α. No. 3432/Mum/2019

Section 14A

Selestina Tirkey, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bilaspur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 807/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Raipur18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.807/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Selestina Tirkey C/O. Aghya Kerketta, Ganga Nagar, Phase-Ii, Behind 36 Mall, Mangla Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Arapt0339E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Yash Dhariwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

with such other co-owners not withstanding its registered sale deed to avoid multiple registrations as discussed above holding the same as attracted by Rule 46A of I.T Rule for its consideration contrary to the evidentiary value of registered sale deed of appellant as discussed above. However, appellant ... substantiate such applicability of specific provisions/facts of the case as applicable to appellant facts of case to attract Rule 46A of I.T Rules as appellant has provided sufficient time and opportunities during the assessment proceedings as appellant has indeed availed and replied as discussed by AO in the assessment order

Swaraj Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 20(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5457/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Shikha Bhardwaj, Advocate &For Respondent: Assessee by

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 68

assessee were examined and verified by the ld. CIT(A) by referring those to the ld. AO in terms of provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1963 (the Rules). 9. In backdrop of such facts and circumstances, we find that the claim of assessee may have some

Income Tax Officer, Daman Ward, Daman vs. Umesh Bhagubhai Patel, Daman

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

ITA 911/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.902/Srt/2024 – Asst.Year 2017-18 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.911/Srt/2024 – Asst.Year 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT (DR)

Section 144Section 69A

assessee has failed to demonstrate that his case was covered under any of the conditions mentioned in clause (a) to (d) of the Rule 46A of the IT Rules. (2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting

Income Tax Officer, Daman Ward, Daman vs. Umesh Bhagubhai Patel, Daman

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

ITA 902/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT (DR)

Section 144Section 69A

Dilipkumar Dahyabhai Patel, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Navsari

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

ITA 62/SRT/2024[ 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.62/Srt/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dilipkumar Dahyabhai Patel The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Moti Kanbiwad Tankal Ward-2 V/S. Tal. Chikhli Navsari Navsari – 396 560 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Asipp 6274 H (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 23/11/2023 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.17,00,000/- On Account Of Unexplained Cash Deposit. Dilipkumar Dahyabhai Patel Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2011-12 2 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Not Accepting Additional Evidences As Per Rule 46A Of Income Tax Rules, 1962. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Not Considering That Cash Deposits In Bank Account Are On Account Of Agricultural Income.

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR

Section 147

circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in not accepting additional evidences as per Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned

Shamima Haseenathul, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-7(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3021/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

For Appellant: Mr. G. Baskar, Advocate

Section 115BSection 54ESection 54FSection 68

assessee has filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Following findings have been rendered by the CIT(A): Regarding Admission of Additional Evidence under Rule 46A:- I have carefully considered the submissions made by the assessee. It is observed that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee furnished certain documents and information ... perusal of the submissions and the material available on record, I find that the assessee has not demonstrated how the conditions prescribed under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules are satisfied so as to warrant admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage. In the absence of compliance with

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Salem vs. Selva Stone Export Private Limited, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2018-19 is partly-allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2051/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2049, 2050 & 2051/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Selva Stone Export Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. No.27-A, Jagadevi Road, Central Circle, Chennai Bye Pass, Salem Krishnagiri – 635 104. Pan: Aarcs 7703E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Bipin C.N, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Viswanathan, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Bipin C.N, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Viswanathan, CA

Section 133ASection 139Section 142Section 143Section 148

submits that the CIT(A) ought not have granted relief without examining the evidence in toto and by considering additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and also in ignorance of evidentiary value of the statement given by the Managing Director of the respondent ... course of survey proceedings. Further, we find that the CIT(A) had taken into account certain additional evidence in gross violation of provisions of Rule 46A of the IT Rules. Therefore, this ground of appeal is also restored back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Salem vs. Selva Stone Export Private Limited, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2018-19 is partly-allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2050/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Bipin C.N, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Viswanathan, CA

Section 133ASection 139Section 142Section 143Section 148

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Salem vs. Selva Stone Export Private Limited, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2018-19 is partly-allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2049/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Bipin C.N, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Viswanathan, CA

Section 133ASection 139Section 142Section 143Section 148

Gayatri Shiksha Nyas, Agra vs. ITO (Exemption), Agra

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

ITA 520/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 143(1)Section 154

violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. That the learned CIT(A) erred in not admitting and considering additional evidences under Rule 46A, which were crucial to determine the true nature of voluntary contributions and to decide the matter on merits, failure to do so renders the order