← 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

Ramesh Kumar, Jhunjhunu vs. ITO Ward-1, Jhunjhunu

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1182/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 250Section 69

Kanpur Coal Syndicate 53 ITR 225 (SC). Sections 251 and 252 of the Act have also been worded keeping the same spirit, as also rule 46A. Section 250 (4) empowers the CIT (A) to make further inquiries on its own or to direct the AO to make further inquiry

Ramesh Kumar, Jhunjhunu vs. ITO Ward-1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1180/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 250Section 69

Kanpur Coal Syndicate 53 ITR 225 (SC). Sections 251 and 252 of the Act have also been worded keeping the same spirit, as also rule 46A. Section 250 (4) empowers the CIT (A) to make further inquiries on its own or to direct the AO to make further inquiry

Ramesh Kumar, Jhunjhunu vs. ITO Ward-1, Jhunjhunu

ITA 1179/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 250Section 69

Kanpur Coal Syndicate 53 ITR 225 (SC). Sections 251 and 252 of the Act have also been worded keeping the same spirit, as also rule 46A. Section 250 (4) empowers the CIT (A) to make further inquiries on its own or to direct the AO to make further inquiry

M/S Surya World Educational Research and Charitable Institute, Rajpura vs. DCIT, CC-I, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed both for non-

ITA 880/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Jun 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR (Virtual Mode)
Section 68

proceed to decide the appeal on merits as well. 3. During the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), the assessee filed an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, for admission of additional evidence relating to corpus donations and unsecured loans. The Ld. CIT(A) forwarded ... appellant, notices were issued to the appellant to file requisite evidence and to justify the source of deposits. Eventually, an application under Rule 46A was filed along with supporting documents explaining the nature of credits and also certain confirmations and affidavits. 7.5 The application of the assessee under Rule 46A

M/S Surya World Educational Research and Charitable Institute, Rajpura vs. DCIT, CC-I, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed both for non- prosecution and on merits

ITA 879/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Us. Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & To Avoid Repetition, We Are Taking Ita No. 879/Del/2018 As The Lead Appeal & Reproducing The Facts, Grounds Raised & The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)Karnal, For Completeness. 2. The Case Was Listed For Hearing On 29/5/2025 , When The Matter Was Called, There Was No Appearance From The Side Of The Assessee. It Is Noted From The Record That Earlier Mr. Tej Mohan, Advocate, Was Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. However, No Adjournment Request Or Explanation For Non-Appearance Has Been Filed. The Conduct Of The Assessee Indicates A Lack Of Interest In Prosecuting The Appeal. However, Considering Non- Appearance On Behalf Of The Assessee On Many Earlier Occasions & The Nature Of The Issues Involved, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal On Merits As Well.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR (Virtual Mode)
Section 68

proceed to decide the appeal on merits as well. 3. During the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), the assessee filed an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, for admission of additional evidence relating to corpus donations and unsecured loans. The Ld. CIT(A) forwarded ... appellant, notices were issued to the appellant to file requisite evidence and to justify the source of deposits. Eventually, an application under Rule 46A was filed along with supporting documents explaining the nature of credits and also certain confirmations and affidavits. 7.5 The application of the assessee under Rule 46A

M/S Surya World Educational Research and Charitable Institute, Rajpura vs. DCIT, CC-I, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed both for non- prosecution and on merits

ITA 878/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Us. Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & To Avoid Repetition, We Are Taking Ita No. 879/Del/2018 As The Lead Appeal & Reproducing The Facts, Grounds Raised & The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)Karnal, For Completeness. 2. The Case Was Listed For Hearing On 29/5/2025 , When The Matter Was Called, There Was No Appearance From The Side Of The Assessee. It Is Noted From The Record That Earlier Mr. Tej Mohan, Advocate, Was Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. However, No Adjournment Request Or Explanation For Non-Appearance Has Been Filed. The Conduct Of The Assessee Indicates A Lack Of Interest In Prosecuting The Appeal. However, Considering Non- Appearance On Behalf Of The Assessee On Many Earlier Occasions & The Nature Of The Issues Involved, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal On Merits As Well.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR (Virtual Mode)
Section 68

proceed to decide the appeal on merits as well. 3. During the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), the assessee filed an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, for admission of additional evidence relating to corpus donations and unsecured loans. The Ld. CIT(A) forwarded ... appellant, notices were issued to the appellant to file requisite evidence and to justify the source of deposits. Eventually, an application under Rule 46A was filed along with supporting documents explaining the nature of credits and also certain confirmations and affidavits. 7.5 The application of the assessee under Rule 46A

Shivprasad Kashinath Desai, Pune vs. ITO Ward, Kudal, Sindhudurg

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

ITA 969/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.969/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shivprasasd Kashinath Desai, Vs. Ito Ward, House No.1358, Kalsewadu Banga, Kudal Sawantwadi-416 511, Dist. Sindhudurga, Maharashtra Pan : Ajhpd0135H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JhaFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 147Section 69A

clearly mentioned in form 53 column 12 that no evidence is being filed. In his submission, the appellant has stated that additional evidence under rule 46A is being introduced without specifying which evidence is additional, what was the reasonable cause for not placing the same before the AO when adequate

Shyam Sundar Inani, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward, Phalodi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 675/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69ASection 80C

cash deposits. It was further submitted that the CIT(A) rightly declined to admit additional evidence in view of non-compliance with Rule 46A. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the records. From the assessment and appellate records, it emerges that the assessee had submitted ... declined to admit additional evidence, such as sale bills, stock registers, and related documents, on the ground that no application was made under Rule 46A. However, considering the nature of the dispute and the evidence now being relied upon, we are of the view that the matter warrants a fresh

Shrivastava Associates, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur

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

ITA 283/RPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.283/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shrivastava Associates 8, Shopping Complex, Ring Road No.1 Priyadarshini Nagar, Raipur-492 001 Pan: Abefs6510J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

factually verified and examined on record by the revenue authorities before arriving at any conclusion. In accordance thereof following the mandate of Rule 46A(3) of the ITAT Rules since additional evidences has already been accepted by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, therefore, all these documents/evidences are remanded back

Amrutha Constructions Private Limited, Sanjayanagar vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 978/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Kumar L, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

Dr. H M Venkatappa, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 2176/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri E Balasubramanian C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar E, CIT and Shri Subramanian S
Section 153CSection 2(22)(e)

assets including cash. 9. The AO in the remand report strongly objected the admission of additional evidence as the condition provided under rule 46A of IT Rule was not satisfied. The AO also contended as per the provision of Companies Act 2013, when BOD of a company passes any resolution

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. Amrutha Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1190/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar L, Advocate
Section 132Section 132(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

Nagar Panchayat, Banda vs. The Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Sagar, Sagar

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

ITA 118/JAB/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Nagar Panchayat, Banda, Vs. The Acit, Nagar Parishad Building, Banda, Sagar, Circle Sagar, Sagar Banda Nagar S.O. Madhya Pradesh Pan:Aaaln0246R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Milind Wadhwani, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 7.05.2024 Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Dcit, Circle-Sagar, Madhya Pradesh Passed On 10.12.2019 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre ('Nfac) Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-Sagar ('Ao) In Adding A Sum Of Rs. 68,21,182/- To The Income Of The Assessee U/S. 69A As Unexplained Money. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 10.12.2019 Is Without Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.3 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Is Opposed To The Principles Of Equity, Natural Justice & Fair Play.

For Appellant: Sh. Milind Wadhwani, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

NFAC, the assessee had not furnished any documentary evidence to establish its claim. It had requested for submission of additional evidences under Rule 46A, but no additional evidences as requested were furnished to establish the source of the impugned cash deposits. From the same, ld. CIT(A) concluded that

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Circle, Panchkula vs. The Haryana State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development, Panchkula

Appeal is allowed

ITA 596/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPALYADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

assessee’s procedural ground on amending claims or adducing evidence. 27. CIT(A) held no separate adjudication was needed but allowed flexibility under Rule 46A, admitting relevant documents like audit reports and ledgers. 28. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that this is a covered issue

The Haryana State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development, Panchkula vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circleu��, Panchkula

Appeal is allowed

ITA 595/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2025AY 2017-18

assessee's procedural ground on amending claims or adducing evidence. 27. CIT(A) held no separate adjudication was needed but allowed flexibility under Rule 46A, admitting relevant documents like audit reports and ledgers. 28. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that this is a covered issue

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Circle, Panchkula vs. The Haryana State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development, Panchkula

Appeal is allowed

ITA 594/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. RAJPALYADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

assessee’s procedural ground on amending claims or adducing evidence. 27. CIT(A) held no separate adjudication was needed but allowed flexibility under Rule 46A, admitting relevant documents like audit reports and ledgers. 28. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that this is a covered issue

The Haryana State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development, Panchkula vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Panchkula

Appeal is allowed

ITA 593/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. RAJPALYADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

assessee’s procedural ground on amending claims or adducing evidence. 27. CIT(A) held no separate adjudication was needed but allowed flexibility under Rule 46A, admitting relevant documents like audit reports and ledgers. 28. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that this is a covered issue

The Haryana State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development, Panchkula vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Panchkula

Appeal is allowed

ITA 592/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPALYADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

assessee’s procedural ground on amending claims or adducing evidence. 27. CIT(A) held no separate adjudication was needed but allowed flexibility under Rule 46A, admitting relevant documents like audit reports and ledgers. 28. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that this is a covered issue

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Circle, Panchkula vs. The Haryana State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development, Panchkula

Appeal is allowed

ITA 591/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. RAJPALYADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

assessee’s procedural ground on amending claims or adducing evidence. 27. CIT(A) held no separate adjudication was needed but allowed flexibility under Rule 46A, admitting relevant documents like audit reports and ledgers. 28. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that this is a covered issue

The Haryana State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development, Panchkula vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Panchkula

Appeal is allowed

ITA 590/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPALYADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

assessee’s procedural ground on amending claims or adducing evidence. 27. CIT(A) held no separate adjudication was needed but allowed flexibility under Rule 46A, admitting relevant documents like audit reports and ledgers. 28. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that this is a covered issue