← 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

Abdul Aziz, Dudu vs. ITO Ward 7(3), Lal Kothi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1025/JPR/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2025AY 2012-2013
For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50C

grossly erred in law as well as on facts of the case in not admitting additional evidence submitted by the assessee under Rule-46A(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 3. The CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the addition ... LTCG. 4. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee adduced additional evidence under Rule- 46A before the CIT(A). The assessee pleaded before the CIT (A) to accept these evidences as the same establishes the genuineness of the transactions

DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs. Sunpoint Trading Limited, Memnagar, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 215/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, SR.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69

erred in admitting additional evidences submitted by the assessee without recording the reasons for their admission, which is in violation of Rule 46A(2) of Income Tax Rules. (a) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in relying upon the additional evidences without providing sufficient opportunity to the Assessing Officer ... examine the additional evidences and submit remand report under rule 46A(3) of Income Tax Rules. (e) The appellant craves leave to add, alter and /or to amend all or any the ground before the final hearing of the appeal.” 9. The learned Departmental Representative supported the reassessment order passed

Income Tax Officer, Thane vs. Aura Navkar Developers, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 6681/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ito, Ward-4(1), Thane Aura Navkar Developers Room No.3, A-Wing, Gala No. 20, The Sidhupura 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Vs. Ind. Est. Ltd. Gaiwadi, Wagle Industrial Estate, S.V.Road, Goregaon West, Thane(W),Mumbai-400604 Mumbai- 400062 Pan No. Aazfa 9532 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Mr. Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(4)Section 69

partner of the appellant firm affirming facts These documents were produced as additional evidence at the appellate stage under rule 46A. The appellant stated that it was Aura Navkar Developers 7 prevented by reasonable cause in submitting the above documents before the AO. The appellant submits that it was prevented ... humbly prayed that the evidences submitted before your honour by way of enclosures herewith may kindly be admitted under the provisions of Rule 46A of the I.T Rules, 1962 and considered in deciding the present appeal on merits. All the documents were forwarded to the AO for his comments

DCIT-C-6(2), Mumbai vs. Samira Habitats India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objection by the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 5714/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.5714/Mum/2024 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 250

recorded in the books of accounts. The AO in her remand report has rejected the submission made by the appellant under rule 46A by stating that the appellant failed to explain the business need for incurring such expenditure. However, this seems to be incorrect on part of AO as initially

DCIT-C-6(2), Mumbai vs. Samira Habitats, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

ITA 5710/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 250

recorded in the books of accounts. The AO in her remand report has rejected the submission made by the appellant under rule 46A by stating that the appellant failed to explain the business need for incurring such expenditure. However, this seems to be incorrect on part of AO as initially

DCIT-C-6(2), Mumbai vs. Samira Habitats India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

ITA 5709/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 250

recorded in the books of accounts. The AO in her remand report has rejected the submission made by the appellant under rule 46A by stating that the appellant failed to explain the business need for incurring such expenditure. However, this seems to be incorrect on part of AO as initially

Anthayya Education Foundation Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 5004/MUM/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 12ASection 142(1)

appeal, the assessee filed additional evidence before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) was required to follow the procedure prescribed under the Rule 46A of Income-Tax Rule,1962 [in short ‘the rule'] and call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer including objection for admission ... counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) admitted the additional evidences without following due procedure of law laid down in Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962( In short the ‘Rules'). He further submitted that before pointing out defects in additional evidences

Anthayya Education Foundation Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption 1-(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 5001/MUM/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Margav Shukla &For Respondent: Mr. Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 142(1)

appeal, the assessee filed additional evidence before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) was required to follow the procedure prescribed under the Rule 46A of Income-Tax Rule,1962 [in short ‘the rule’] and call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer including objection for admission ... counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) admitted the additional evidences without following due procedure of law laid down in Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962( In short the ‘Rules’). He further submitted that before pointing out defects in additional evidences

Ram Niwas Yadav, Shahpura vs. Income Tax Officer Behror, Behror

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

ITA 275/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Jaideep Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 234ASection 271(1)(b)Section 44A

written submissions/reply alongwith supporting documents on 16.01.2019 in pursuance to the aforesaid 4 Ram Niwas Yadav vs. ITO appeal and also submitted application under rule 46A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for bringing additional evidence on record at appellate stage. However, after the transfer of appeal to the NFAC ... That, assessee submitted its written submissions dated 16.01.2019 along with supporting documents in the said appeal and further submitted an application dated 09.02.2019 under Rule 46A of the IT Act, for bringing additional evidence on record. The assesee had submitted all the relevant documents/evidence. 8. However, to the utter shock

Pankajsinh Sabubhai Vaghela, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 430/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Tulsina, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 250

refused to admit the same and dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations: “From the plain reading of the rule 46A(1), it is observed that none of the conditions is fulfilled in the case of appellant. During the appellate proceedings also the appellant has failed ... farmer and did not allow the assessee to present factual evidences in support of it’s claim on the technical ground that conditions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules had been violated in the instant case. On going through the case records it is found that the assessee

Income Tax Officer, Tirunelveli vs. Hemla Trust, Tirunelveli

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 138/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri V. Justin, CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

application of income. 7.3 Before concluding, it is to be mentioned that Revenue has raised a ground with regard to violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The above ground raised by the Revenue is devoid of any merits since the assessee trust in the instant case ... been paid to the schools as discount. The details were called by the Ld.CIT(A) under sub-rule (4) to Rule 46A of IT Rules, 1962. In other words, details were furnished at instance of CIT(A) and same was not furnished by the assessee as additional evidence. Since

DCIT, Circle-1(3), Surat vs. Ranidan Meghraj Gandhi, Surat

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

ITA 886/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri P M Jagasheth, C.A
Section 144Section 250Section 68Section 69A

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? (ix) On the facts and circumstances of the case ... during the course of the assessment proceedings, without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not satisfied the basic conditions laid down under Rule 46A(1) of the Income tax Rules, 1962. (x) On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case

Shesharam Kumawat, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-8(2), Hyderabad

ITA 191/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: us :

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav. Sr.D.R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

Memorandum of Appeal i.e., Form No.35, at Column no.12, answered in the affirmative that additional evidence was being filed as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, but it was observed by the CIT(A) that the same comprised of only the extracts of the bank accounts ... Thereafter, the CIT(A) relying upon a host of judicial pronouncements, concluded that as the assessee had failed to satisfy the conditions prescribed under Rule 46A, therefore, the fresh documentary evidence that was filed/uploaded before him in the course of the appellate proceedings did not merit admission. Accordingly

Pradeep Garg, Ajmer vs. ITO 2(1) Ajmer, Ajmer

ITA 397/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(3)Section 64(1)(iv)

Sunchna Kendra land” sold by him. The additional evidences furnished by the appellant during the course of appellate proceedings are not admitted under Rule 46A, as the appellant has not filed any application for admission of additional evidence under rule circumstances given in Clause (a) to (d) of sub-rule ... Rule 46A. Therefore, the disallowance of Rs.3,75,917/- made by the A.O. is hereby confirmed. (Appeals) in his order stated that either during the course of assessment proceedings or appellate proceedings, the assessee has not been able to furnish any evidence to substantiate his claim that he has incurred

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

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

ITA 1344/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2015-2016
For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 69A

dated 20/09/2022) where Hon'ble ITA NO. 1344/JPR/2024 SHOBHA SUMAN MISHRA VS ITO, WRD 2(2), AJMER 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

Vijay Deswal, Rohtak vs. ITO, Ward 5, Rohtak

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 767/DEL/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2009-10 Vijay Deswal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H.No. 160/22, Vikas Nagar, Ward-5, Rohtak Rohtak, Haryana-124001 (Pan: Ajbpd7321H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Naveen Gupta, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05.05.2025 Order

For Appellant: Sh. Naveen Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. DR

documentary filed. Moreover, during the appellate proceedings, the assessee has also not made out any case as to under which exception prescribed under Rule 46A, the new evidences can be admitted at this stage especially when such new evidences were neither filed during the first round of appeal nor during ... assessment proceedings in the second round. The new evidence can be admitted only if the appellant satisfies any of the conditions prescribed under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and in the case under consideration, the assessee has not made any case that new evidence is admissible under

DCIT, Circle-3, Thane vs. PAN Gulf Technologies Private Limited, Thane

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1747/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh BhrkeFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha
Section 143(1)Section 43B

grievance of Revenue in this appeal. 2. During the appeal proceedings before the ITAT, the Ld. AR has contended that Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules was violated and the Ld. AO (in this case CPC) was not given opportunity before allowing the deduction under section

Avinash S Sadamate ACIT Circle 3 3 1, Mumbai vs. Vijay Security Systems Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1208/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Acit Circle-(3)(3)(1) Vijay Security Systems Private Room No. 552, Aayakar Limited, 35 Chandivali Village Off Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East), Churchgate, Mumbai-400072. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaacv1363L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri. Sandeep Chaturvedi Ca Revenue By Ms. Pradnya Gholap, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/05/2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Revenue / Assessing Officer Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ld. Cit(A)) Dated 24.01.2025 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “ (1) "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Justified In Treating The Assessment Completed Ex-Parte U/S.144 Of The Act Disregarding The Fact That Desired Details Called For Were Not Submitted Before The Ao I.E. Ito-11(3)(3) Having Jurisdiction Over The Case?" (Ii) "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Justified In Not Deciding The Appeal On Merit Of The Additions Made By Ao & In Fact, Not Considering The Fact That The Information Of Obtaining Accommodation Bills Towards Alleged Bogus Purchases Was Received From The Sales Department?" (Iii) "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Rightly Dismissed The Appeal Without Considering The Fact That The Genuineness Of The Details Submitted By The Assessee During Remand Proceedings By The Assessee Officer Could Not Be Ascertained In The Absence Of Parties Involved & The Same Was Not Questioned As Well By The Ld.Cit(A)?" Acit Vs Vijay Security Services (Iv) "The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend And/Or Vary Grounds Of Appeal Before Or During The Course Of Hearing.”

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69C

recorded that though these documents were not examined by AO at the time of assessment, however these documents were remanded as per Rule 46A(i) for fresh examination. The AO filed his remand report. The contents of remand 5 ACIT Vs Vijay Security Services report is reproduced in para ... written submissions and various evidences to substantiate the purchases from both the parties. The assessee also filed application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules. The ld CIT(A) remanded all the evidence to the AO for his remand report. The AO furnished his remand

M/S Abhman Distributor Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1410/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

shall also provide 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 of the assessee is allowed

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Kota vs. Ram Lal and Sons, Kota

In the result, grounds taken by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 408/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarito, Ward 2(1), Kota. ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194HSection 250Section 69A

assessee during the appeal proceedings. However, the same has not been sent to JAO for remand report as per the Income-Tax Rule 46A (3), since the submission made before the CIT (A) the same was never submitted before the AO. 2. The brief facts of the case are that ... understanding that how the Ld. CIT(A) can by-pass the procedure as prescribed under 46A of the Rules as reproduced herein below: Rule - 46A, Income-tax Rules, 1962 Production of additional evidence before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals)and Commissioner (Appeals). 46A. (1) The appellant shall not be entitled