“rule 46A”

Pawan Solanki, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 58(3), New Delhi

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2012-13

total income of the assessee under Section 69 of the Act. Even before the First Appellate Authority no submission was made, but application under Rule 46A for admission of evidence was filed. Having regard to this peculiar aspect of the matter the Ld. CIT(A), in the absence

Sperry Plast Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Appealof the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Sperry Plast Vs. Dcit 208, 2Nd Floor, Akashdeep Central Circle-6, Building, Barakhamba New Delhi Road, Connaught Place, S.O. Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aaacs2623L Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ca Amit Goel, Advocate Deepanshusingla & Advocate Pranav Yadav Revenue By Sh. Mahesh Kumar Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/06/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short) Delhi Dated 16/08/2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Impugned Order Dated 16.08.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"), Partly Dismissing The Grounds Of Appeal & Sustaining The Addition Of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- In Place Of Returned Income As Returned By The Assessee Is Bad In Law On Account Of Several Grounds & Assessee/Appellant Denies Its Liability To Be Assessed For Any Income Other Than The Income Already Returned By The Assessee & Any Consequential Demand Thereon.

that the Assessee failed to submit necessary documents. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee filed an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules. The Ld. CIT(A) called for Remand Report and based on the Remand Report, out of 18 parties

Vijay Kumar Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 44(2), Delhi

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

Bench: DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI Ms. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

delay, application for admission of additional evidence in the shape of bank statement for preceding assessment year i.e. assessment year 2011-12 under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules’ 1962 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules”) and written submissions in support of grounds raised challenging the jurisdictional issue and addition ... however, neither the Assessing Officer has been allowed any opportunity to examine the evidences nor he himself rejected or admitted the additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Rules, rather the First Appellate Authority proceeded to decide the appeal filed by appellant and has confirmed the addition made

Nitin Kumar Gupta, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(3), C R Building ITO

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshnitin Kumar Gupta, Vs. Ito, J 1298B 4Th Floor, Palam Vihar, Ward-19(3), Haryana Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ahtpg3074G

proper and adequate opportunity of being heard in which is clear violation of the principle of natural justice and without considering application under rule 46A of the Income Tax Act for filling additional evidence. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred

Avt Homes Private Limited vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Fbd

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

even by admitting the documentary evidences filed and without calling for the remand report against as additional evidences filed under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. - 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in not appreciating the fact ... observed by Ld. CIT(A) at para "5.1. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant had requested for admission of additional evidence under rule 46A and the same is admitted.". 6. Below is the brief summary/chart showing sole issue involved in the abovementioned appeal of assessee and details

DCIT, CC-4, New Delhi vs. Mg Housing Pvt Ltd., New Delhi

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

company making investment in M/s SGS Udyog Pvt. Ltd., bank statement without calling the report from assessing officer under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rule, 1962, for providing an opportunity of making further enquiries of parties' creditworthiness, genuineness and identity. 2.1 The Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting ... shareholder, ITR and audited Balance sheet, P&L of shareholder, Bank Statement, Share certificate, valuation report without calling the report from assessing officer under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rule, 1962, for providing an opportunity Page 2 of 19 [A.Y. 2015-16] Dy. CIT Vs. MG Housing

DCIT Circle-22(2), New Delhi vs. Sb Infosoft India Pvt Ltd, Panchkula

The appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

accounts and the audited financial statements before the Learned CIT(A). All these documents were filed in the form of additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The Learned CIT(A) sought a remand report from the Learned AO with regard to those additional evidences. The Learned

DCIT Circle-22(2), New Delhi vs. Sb Infosoft India Pvt Ltd, Panchkula

The appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

accounts and the audited financial statements before the Learned CIT(A). All these documents were filed in the form of additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The Learned CIT(A) sought a remand report from the Learned AO with regard to those additional evidences. The Learned

DCIT, Circle- 7(1), New Delhi vs. Delhi Automobiles Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs. Delhi Automobiles Ltd., Circle-7(1), 14-C, Sagar Apartments, New Delhi 6 Tilak Marg, Pin 1100 02 New Delhi Pin: 1100 01 Pan No. Aabcd7933P (Appellant) (Respondent)

erred in 2 accepting the evidence in appellate proceedings without obtaining comments of the Ld. AO in remand proceedings in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. Reliance was placed on judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT, Central-1 Vs. Manish Build Well ... because the assessee was prevented by adducing them before the assessing officer. This observation takes care of clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 46A. The observation of the CIT (A) also takes care of sub-rule (2) under which he is required to record his reasons for admitting