← 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

Gouri Shankar Goyal, Siliguri vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 1, Siliguri

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

ITA 1748/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George Mathangouri Shankar Goyal Vs Acit, Circle-1, Siliguri C/O Omprakash Agarwal(Goyal) Agrasen Road, Khalpara, Siliguri-734005 Pan No. :Adgpg 0529 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Girdhar Dhelia, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri Girdhar Dhelia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

evidences have been produced before the Id.CIT(A) and the Id.CIT(A) has not admitted the evidence, insofar as there has been violation of Rule 46A, in the interest of justice, so as to grant another opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case before the Id. Assessing Officer, this

Unhel Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd, Jhalawar vs. ITO Ward Jhalawar, Jhalawar

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

ITA 499/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Assessing Officer & Was Unable To Furnish

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kumar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 68Section 80P

assessee 3 Unhel Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd vs. ITO furnished a paper book running into 96 pages along with the applications under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules for admission of additional evidence. It is stated before me that the assessee has complete details to explain the source

Anil Gala Navneet Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(1)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 2951/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Praksh Kantanil Gala Navneet Trust Vs Income Tax Cpc, Bengaluru Navneet Bhavan, Bhavani Shankar Road, Nr. Shardashram Society, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400 028 Pan : Aada5826D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe – (SR. DR.)
Section 143(1)Section 164Section 2Section 234Section 250

Ground No.4: General Grounds of appeal 1. Your Appellant craves leave to file additional evidences during the course of appeal proceedings in terms of Rule 46A r.w.s. 250. 2. Your Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify or delete all or any of the above grounds of appeal

Income Tax Officer, Kolkata vs. Sonu Marketing Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 923/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathanito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata Vs M/S Sonu Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 71/3, Kankurgachi, Kolkata-700054 Pan No. :Aadcs 5515 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Vidhi Ladia, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 19.03.2025, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074708973(1) For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Ms. Vidhi Ladia, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. In The Revenue'S Appeal The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- 1. Whether On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 29.48,304/- On Account Of Non-Genuine Losses. 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Deciding The Case In Favour Of The Assessee By Misinterpreting The Relevant Terms Of The Decisions Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Cases Of Uoi Vs. Ashish Agarwalla (2022 Scc Online Sc 543) & Uoi Vs. Rajeev Bansal (Dated 03.10.2024) [Civil Appeal No. 8629 Of 2024].

For Appellant: Ms. Vidhi Ladia, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR
Section 68

case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not remanding the matter back to the AO for fresh verification. Thus, the provisions of Rule 46A of the 1.T. Rules are violated. 9. That the appellant craves leave to add to and/or alter. amend, modify or rescind the grounds

Harsh Comtrade Pvt Ltd, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 225/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.225/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Harsh Comtrade Private Limited, Vs Ito, Ward-5(4), Kolkata 1/A, Stuti Apartment, Near Ashok Panhouse, City Light, Surat, Gujarat Pan No. :Aabcg 8847 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Mehul Shah, Ar नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 28.12.2023, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059161646(1) For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. Shri Mehul Shah, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Submitted That He Has Filed Written Submissions Before The Tribunal Which Has Been Placed In The Paper Book At Pages 90 To 104 Which Reads As Follows :- Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata - 'Smc' Bench In The Case Of Harsh Comtrade Pvt. Ltd Sub: Written Submission For A.Y. 2012-13 Ref: Assessee'S Appeal No. 225/Kol/2024 Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2024 May It Please To Your Honour 1. In This Case, The Case Is Re-Opened On The Basis Of Reasons For Reopening Recorded On 23.03.2018. The Same Is Reproduced

For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. CIT-Sr.DR
Section 148

pages 16 & 17 at para 5 to 5.2 of his order, had held that evidences have been produced in violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962. It was the submission that the reopening of the assessment is liable to be quashed at the outset. Secondly, even on merits ... produced before the AO. It is also an admitted fact that the ld. CIT(A) has not admitted the additional evidence in regard to Rule 46A of IT Rules, 1962. In these circumstances, I am of the view that on merits, the issue needs verification and therefore is required

C P Metaliks Private Limited, G.T. Road Bhiringee vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Durgapur

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1482/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, DR
Section 250Section 68

been received from the appellant. However, considering the submission of the appellant and the remand report of the A.O. and the provisions of Rule 46A and the factual matrix of the case, I deem it fit to admit the additional evidences under Rule 46A and to consider the same

Mrs. Kather Maher, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(4), Chennai

In the result, the relevant Ground No

ITA 689/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Ms. Lavanya, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 68Section 69A

completed u/s.143(3) of the Act, the assessee preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Before the FAA, the assessee filed petition under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 for furnishing bank statements. Before the FAA, it was submitted that addition of Rs.11,00,000/- as unexplained

ACIT, Circle-28(1) -New Delhi, New Delhi vs. Deepak Kumar Rajgarhia, Delhi

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

ITA 3316/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanacit, Circle 28 (1), Vs. Deepak Kumar Rajgarhia, New Delhi. K-199 A, Asola Road, Fatehpur Beri, Delhi – 110 074. (Pan : Aaopr7257C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pradeep Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2025 Date Of Order : 01.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 20.05.2024 For Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Dr Of The Revenue Submitted That The Assessee Has Submitted Certain Documents Before The Ld. Cit (A) & Ld. Cit (A) Considered The Same For Giving Relief To The Assessee Without Giving Proper

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

same for giving relief to the assessee without giving proper 2 opportunity to the Assessing Officer and not followed the procedure laid down under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 3. After considering both the parties, we are inclined to remit this issue back to the file

DCIT, Circle-1(3), Surat, Anavil Business Centre, Adajan vs. Shri Asfaq Hajiyunus Noorani, Rander

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 716/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.716/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Asfaq Hajiyunus Noorani, Circle – 1(3), 1, Abdullah Park, Gorat Road, Surat Rander, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaopn6148A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2025

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 250(2)Section 68

providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessing Officer as per the provisions of section 250(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and Rule 46A(3) of the income tax Rules, 1962. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... admission of additional evidence and not providing opportunity of hearing as per the provisions of sec. 250(2) of the Act and the Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. It is seen from the details filed by the appellant including the paper books that no additional evidence

Mayank Raghuwanshi, Sevani Malava vs. ITO-1, Itarsi, Hoshangabad

ITA 852/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 246ASection 253Section 69A

proceeded to pass the “impugned assessment order" u/s 144 and in 1st appellate proceedings the assessee has also produced additional evidence Under Rule 46A but has failed to justify any material ingredients of Rule 46A by virtue of which additional evidence could be taken on record. 2.3 That the assessee ... only upheld the “impugned assessment order" passed u/s 144 of the Act but simultaneously has rejected the application for additional evidence Under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules. It was also submitted that the Ld. A.O issued notice(s) u/s 142(1) of the Act wherein the assessee was called

Shobha Suman Mishra, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ajmer

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

ITA 576/JPR/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.576/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2014-15 Shobha Suman Mishra 5/6, B Block, Keshav Marg, Panchsheel, Ajmer-305 001 अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward 2(2) Ajmer प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AGCPS7545N निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Sanjeev Jain, CA राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 69A

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in law as well as on facts of the case by not admitting Additional Evidences as per Rule 46A of the Income- tax Rules, 1962. 5) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in law as well as on facts of the case ... Nirmala Subramanian v/s CIT (A)-26, Mumbai (ITA No. 3746/Mum/2019 dated 20/09/2022) where Hon'ble ITAT Mumbal held that "We find that Rule 46A, does not mandate compulsorily by making written application for admission of additional evidence. It is for the learned CIT (A) to record the reason if such

Satya Narain Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle 5, Jaipur

ITA 565/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: The Hearing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Tanuj Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

appellant in Form No. 35 for not providing sufficient opportunity of being heard which is against the principles of natural justice. An application under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidence of another cash book of business u/s 44AD alongwith copies of registered sale deeds were filed (paper book page ... cash balance computed by the ld. A.O. at Rs.4,86,143/- which was added as unexplained cash deposits. The learned CIT(A) forwarded the Rule 46A application of the appellant (paper book page no. 67) alongwith written submissions and paper book of the appellant to the AO against which

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Range-, Lucknow. vs. Sh. Sharad Deora, Lucknow

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

ITA 57/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

Section 143(3)Section 68

lenders. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law in admitting additional evidence produced by the assessee before him in contravention of Rule 46A(1) of the Income Tax Rules 1962 without giving reasonable opportunity to Assessing Officer in accordance with Rule 46(3) of the Income ... order passed by learned CIT(A). 4. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. Under Rule 46A, the CIT(A) can accept the additional evidence whether oral or documentary during the course of appellate proceedings, provided the contentions stipulated under clause

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Kanpur vs. M/S. Habib Tannery Private Limited, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Department stands dismissed

ITA 564/LKW/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income V. M/S Habib Tannery Pvt. Ltd. Tax-6 15-B, 150 Ft. Road Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aach4129E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri H. S. Usmani, Cit (Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H. S. Usmani, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

facts and circumstances of the case in accepting the additional evidences, without affording opportunity to the Assessing Officer as provided under Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 04. That the order of the CIT(A) being erroneous in law and on facts needs to be vacated ... submitted that there was no additional evidence filed by the assessee and, therefore, there was no petition under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 for filing additional evidence from the side of the assessee. It was submitted that the assessee, with the details already filed and with

The District Mining Officer, Bareilly vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Bareilly

ITA 246/LKW/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 133ASection 206CSection 250

justified in refusing to adjudicate upon the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee concerning the instant controversy citing the reason that provisions of Rule 46A were attracted and the same were not satisfied. The provisions of Rule 46A are extraneous to the instant controversy ... been brought to the notice of the ld. AO during TDS proceedings. As such, these were therefore, additional evidences for which no application under Rule 46A had been filed. In view of this, he declined to consider the same and accordingly confirmed the addition by dismissing the appeal

Rituparna Biswas, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 26(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 904/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 68

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

Peaceful Agencies Private Limited (Now Merged With Nirmiti Realties Private Limited), Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward 10(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 868/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 68

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata vs. Kaushalya Nirman Private Limited, Kolkata

Appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1068/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: The Addl. Cit, Central Range-3, Kolkata For Perusal & Onwards Transmission To The Ld. Pr. Cit, Central-2. Kolkata. Subsequently, On 07.05.2024 The Ld. Pr. Cit Accorded Approval For Filing Appeal Before The Hon'Ble Itat, Kolkata. After Receiving The Approval, The Following Documents Have Been Prepared (Three Copies Each) For Filing The Appeal Before The Hon'Ble Itat, Kolkata. 1) Form No. 36

Section 250Section 56(2)(vib)

based on the documents submitted by the assessee without giving an opportunity to the AO to examine the same, in contravention of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ? 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law by not addressing the factual position of outstanding ... seen to have called for any remand report or even admitted the same under Rule 46A of the IT Rules. In this manner, the Ld. DR assailed the action of Ld. CIT(A) and stated that the department was denied an opportunity to examine the documents before

Banumathy Educational Service Trust, Thanjavur vs. ITO, Exemptions, Ward, Trichy

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

ITA 1228/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1228/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Banumathy Educational Service Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Best Matriculation School, Mariamman Exemptions Ward, Koil Road, Bye Pass Rountana, Trichy. Thanjavur 613 001. [Pan:Aabtb6646G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.01.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 30 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

making various additions against which the assessee preferred further appeal before the ld. CIT(A). By rejecting the fresh evidence filed under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee as the assessee has no sufficient cause for not filing ... deciding the fate of the issues raised in the grounds of appeal of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). He vehemently argued that Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules cannot be over ride the principles of natural justice and thus, prayed for suitable directions

Babita Bansal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-59(3), Delhi

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

ITA 1647/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbabita Bansal, Income Tax Officer Flat No.104, Tower No.5, Ward-59(3), Commonwealth Games, Vs. Delhi. Village Delhi, Gokulpuri, Badarpur Khadar B.O., Delhi-110090 Pan:Aarpb3215F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri V. P. Gupta, Adv. & Shri Anunav Kumar Adv. Department By Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. Dr

Section 54F

reason that no separate petition for admission of 2 IT No.1647/Del/2025 Babita Bansal vs. ITO additional evidences as provided under Rule 46A of the Rules was filed by the assessee. The Ld. AR further submits that the assessment in this case was completed ex-parte and, therefore, the details could ... admitted the additional evidences filed by the assessee for the sole reason that no separate petition was filed under Rule 46A and the issue raised in appeal was not decided on merits. The fact remains that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54F for which the necessary agreement was placed