← 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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Vijayawada vs. The Chintalapadu Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Chintalapadu Village

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 153/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.153/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Income Tax Officer Vs. The Chintalapadu Ward-1(1) Primary Agricultural Vijayawada Co-Op Credit Society Ltd. Chintalapadu Village Krishna Dist. [Pan : Aacat7617B] (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.17/Viz/2025 Arising Out Of Ita No.153/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) The Chintalapadu Primary Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1) Agricultural Co-Op Credit Vijayawada Society Ltd. Chintalapadu Village Krishna Dist. [Pan : Aacat7617B] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Ar (Through Hybrid Hearing) रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr.Aparna Villuri, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/04/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/04/2025 Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 142(1)Section 80P

calling for remand report from the AO. Thus, the Ld.DR has submitted that there is violation of principles of natural justice as well as Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962. Thus, the Ld.DR has pleaded that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) should be set aside

Munireddy Prakashreddy, Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hosur

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

ITA 450/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.450/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2012-13 Munireddy Prakashreddy, Income Tax Officer, No.1/16, Madivalam, Nallur Post, Ward-1, Hosur, Krishnagiri Dist. Hosur. Tamil Nadu-635 103, [Pan: Afbpp3725K] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.Akash, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gowthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri G.Akash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gowthami Manivasagam, JCIT

evident from page 4 of the order, however, the Ld.CIT(A) proceeded to reject since the assessee had omitted to make an application under Rule 46A. It was submitted that non-indication of Rule 46A was an inadvertent omission on the part of the assessee. Accordingly request was made ... compliance by the assessee. It is also seen that the Ld.CIT(A) has merely rejected the additional evidences for non-reference to Rule 46A by the assessee. It is trite law that substance prevails over Form. Non-mention of Rule 46A cannot be a strong ground for rejection of evidences

ITO Ward-1, Kolar vs. Sayedsaleem Sayedriyazahmed Savanur, Kolar

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

ITA 1479/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri K. Yathish, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

That the CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by not giving an opportunity to the AO under Rule 46A for countering the submissions made by the assessee before the C1T(A) depicting the nature of deposits though the Page 2 of 6 assessee remained non responsive throughout ... said documents could not have been entertained without granting an opportunity to the AO to rebut the same. The Ld.DR further relied on Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules in support of his contention. 5. The Ld.AR submitted that the documents are not new documents but only the statutory records

Asst.Commissioner of Income-Tax - Circle 41-1-1, Mumbai vs. Satya Kim Yashpal, Mumbai

ITA 5503/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 250

Tribunal contending, inter alia, that the CIT(A) has proceeded to admit the additional evidence and grant relief without complying with the provisionscontained in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules 1962 (for short ‘IT Rules’). 11. On perusal of material on record, we find that the Assessing Officer ... consideration without confronting the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we find merit in the contention advance on behalf of the Revenue that the provisions contained in Rule 46A of the IT Rules were not complied with. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the CIT(A). However, taking note

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax- 41 1 1, Mumbai vs. Satya Kim Yashpal, Mumbai

ITA 5502/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09
Section 250

Tribunal contending, inter alia, that the CIT(A) has proceeded to admit the additional evidence and grant relief without complying with the provisionscontained in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules 1962 (for short `IT Rules'). 11. On perusal of material on record, we find that the Assessing Officer ... consideration without confronting the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we find merit in the contention advance on behalf of the Revenue that the provisions contained in Rule 46A of the IT Rules were not complied with. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the CIT(A). However, taking note

DCIT 41.1.1, Mumbai vs. Satya Kim Yashpal, Mumbai

ITA 5311/MUM/2024[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 1997-98
Section 250

Tribunal contending, inter alia, that the CIT(A) has proceeded to admit the additional evidence and grant relief without complying with the provisionscontained in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules 1962 (for short ‘IT Rules’). On perusal of material on record, we find that the Assessing Officer had made ... consideration without confronting the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we find merit in the contention advance on behalf of the Revenue that the provisions contained in Rule 46A of the IT Rules were not complied with. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the CIT(A). However, taking note

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 41(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Satya Kim Yashpal, Mumbai

ITA 5309/MUM/2024[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 1997-98

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 250

Tribunal contending, inter alia, that the CIT(A) has proceeded to admit the additional evidence and grant relief without complying with the provisionscontained in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules 1962 (for short ‘IT Rules’). 11. On perusal of material on record, we find that the Assessing Officer ... consideration without confronting the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we find merit in the contention advance on behalf of the Revenue that the provisions contained in Rule 46A of the IT Rules were not complied with. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the CIT(A). However, taking note

DCIT 41.1.1, Kautilya Bhawan, Mumb vs. Satya Kim Yashpal, Mumbai

ITA 5138/MUM/2024[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2001-02
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule; Shri Bhangepatil
Section 250

Tribunal contending, inter alia, that the CIT(A) has proceeded to admit the additional evidence and grant relief without complying with the provisionscontained in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules 1962 (for short `IT Rules'). On perusal of material on record, we find that the Assessing Officer had made ... consideration without confronting the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we find merit in the contention advance on behalf of the Revenue that the provisions contained in Rule 46A of the IT Rules were not complied with. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the CIT(A). However, taking note

DCIT 41 1 1, Mumbai vs. Satya Kim Yashpal, Mumbai

ITA 5137/MUM/2024[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2001-02

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 250

Tribunal contending, inter alia, that the CIT(A) has proceeded to admit the additional evidence and grant relief without complying with the provisionscontained in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules 1962 (for short ‘IT Rules’). 11. On perusal of material on record, we find that the Assessing Officer ... consideration without confronting the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we find merit in the contention advance on behalf of the Revenue that the provisions contained in Rule 46A of the IT Rules were not complied with. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the CIT(A). However, taking note

Anil Kumar, Chapra Saran vs. Assessment Unit, Chhapra

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

ITA 643/PAT/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Apr 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: The Ld. Ao.

Section 147Section 250

evidence that ITA No. 643/Pat/2024 Anil Kumar he filed at that stage were not admitted for adjudication since they were not filed under Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962. Since the Ld. CIT(A) did not consider the new evidence, he is seen to have confirmed the action ... Before us, the Ld. AR vehemently argued that the Ld. CIT(A) should have admitted the new documents even when a proper application under Rule 46A of the Rules was not there. The Ld. AR prayed for admission of such new evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that

Jayesh Jadavji Thakkar, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 930/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.930/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Jayesh Jadavji Thakkar, Vs. The Ito, 402, Paradise Apartment, Mahadev Ward - 3(2)(1), Faliu, Katargam, Surat - 395004 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajmpt4689H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2025

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 253(3)Section 69A

No.930/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 Jayesh Jadavji Thakkar remand report before passing the appellate order. This is in clear violation of Rule 46A(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. He, therefore, requested that the order of CIT(A) may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to AO for fresh adjudication ... remand report was called from the AO, which the CIT(A) was statutorily required to obtain in view of sub-Rule (3) of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rule, 1962. It is well- settled that the CIT(A) is vested with co-terminus power that

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Surat, Adajan vs. Nita Ravi Khandelwal, Ghod Dod Road, Surat

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 813/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.813/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Nita Ravi Khandelwal, Ward – 1(3)(1), 33, Pratistha Awas, Ghod Dod Road, Surat Surat – 395007, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Agsps2820A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Jaikishan Goel, Ca Date Of Hearing 13/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2025

Section 250(2)Section 68

Assessing Officer as per the ITA No.813/SRT/2023/AY.2016-17 Nita Ravi Khandelwal provisions of section 250(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and Rule 46A(3) of the income tax Rules, 1962. iv. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred ... 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. v. On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case

Santosh Chandrahas Waghchaure, Pune vs. ITO, Ward14(5), Pune

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

ITA 325/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.325/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Santosh Chandrahas V The Income Tax Officer, Waghchaure, S Ward-14(5), Pune. House No.641, Waghchaure Building, Indreshwar Nagar, Indapur, Pune – 413106. Pan: Abqpw7868K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 250

satisfied with the fresh evidence uploaded at the time of appellate proceedings, since the appellant has not satisfied the conditions provided under Rule 46A. Hence the fresh evidence uploaded is not admitted. Under the circumstances, considering the case laws and carefully examining the materials available in the system

ACIT, Circle-18(2), New Delhi vs. Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3559/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 37Section 41Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Noida has erred in law by admitting the additional evidence filed under Rule-46A of the Income Tax Rules-1962, without referring the reasonable cause which prevented the assessee to produce the same during the assessment proceeding ... case of M/s Allure Developers Pvt. Ltd., AY 2020-21 (pp. 79–80). Accordingly, the ground raised by the department regarding violation of Rule 46A is not relevant, particularly as all enquiry findings were forwarded to the AO for comments, and no objections were raised (Ref: CIT(A) order

DCIT, International Taxation, Jaipur vs. Kavita Chhugani, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 127/JPR/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Ashish Khandelwal, C.A., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 69A

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in admitting the additional evidences filed by the assessee in contravention to rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules which mandates that no additional evidence shall be admitted by the CIT (Appeals) without providing opportunity to the AO to examine the evidence ... relevant ground on this issue raised by the department is dismissed. 7. Ground nos. 1.4 and 1.5 relating to admission of additional evidence under rule 46A of the Rules without giving an opportunity to the AO is found to be an academic one, i.e. not a substantial ground, which confirms

Kiritbhai Bhikhabhai Patel, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward-3, Navsari

In the result, both appeal of the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 965/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.965/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Kiritbhai Bhikhabhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, बनाम/ 48, Paradi, Balak Valsad, Navsari, Room No.206, Income Vs. Navsari-396 475 Tax Officer, Char Pool, Awabaug, Navsari-396 445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Awspp 7295 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.830/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Navsari, Kiritbhai Bhikhabhai Patel बनाम/ Room No.206, Income Tax Officer, 48, Paradi, Arak Valsad, Vs. Char Pool, Awabaug, Navsari-396 Navsari-396 475 445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Awspp 7295 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 144Section 250Section 251(1)(a)

setting aside the case of AO. He further submitted that CIT(A) has clearly violated the provisions of Rule 46A(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 which requires that the additional evidence submitted for the first time before CIT(A) should be admitted only after recording the reasons ... submission and materials filed by the assessee without forwarding same and calling for remand report from the AO. This is in clear violation of Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules. As per Rule-46A(1), (2) and (3), if additional evidence is permitted to be produced, then firstly, there

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Na vs. Ari, Navsarivs.Kiritbhai Bhikhabhai Patel, Navsari

In the result, both appeal of the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 830/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.965/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Kiritbhai Bhikhabhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, बनाम/ 48, Paradi, Balak Valsad, Navsari, Room No.206, Income Vs. Navsari-396 475 Tax Officer, Char Pool, Awabaug, Navsari-396 445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Awspp 7295 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.830/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Navsari, Kiritbhai Bhikhabhai Patel बनाम/ Room No.206, Income Tax Officer, 48, Paradi, Arak Valsad, Vs. Char Pool, Awabaug, Navsari-396 Navsari-396 475 445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Awspp 7295 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 144Section 250Section 251(1)(a)

setting aside the case of AO. He further submitted that CIT(A) has clearly violated the provisions of Rule 46A(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 which requires that the additional evidence submitted for the first time before CIT(A) should be admitted only after recording the reasons ... submission and materials filed by the assessee without forwarding same and calling for remand report from the AO. This is in clear violation of Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules. As per Rule-46A(1), (2) and (3), if additional evidence is permitted to be produced, then firstly, there

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bareilly vs. Ms Shree Bhawani Mills, Shahjahanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed while the Cross

ITA 332/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S Shree Bhawani Mills, Tax, Circle-1, Bareilly Gandhi Ganj, Shahjahanpur, U.P. Pan:Aadfs8573M (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.15/Lkw/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 M/S Shree Bhawani Mills, Gandhi Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Ganj, Shahjahanpur, U.P. Income Tax, Circle-1, Bareilly Pan:Aadfs8573M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act On 7.09.2023 Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao On 30.03.2022 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, CIT DR
Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 46A

proceedings and the assessment had been framed without giving any reason to brush aside the evidences. 5. The assessee also filed an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules for submission of additional evidence and alongwith the same, submitted a copy of the Khatauni (Land Revenue Record ... hereinafter referred to as the ‘ld. CIT DR’) representing the Revenue, pointed out that the order of the ld. CIT(A) was violative of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules because the additional evidence had been admitted without giving an opportunity to the ld. AO. Hence, this order deserve

ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Pune vs. Nandu Antaram Rajput, Pune

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

ITA 1688/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri B. B. ManeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(2)Section 143(3)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not providing any opportunity to the AO under Rule 46A to verify the purpose of interest-free advances, the details of which were only submitted before the Ld.CIT(A) after the assessment and therefore, the source, purpose ... that it was inevitable for Ld. CIT(A) to forward all these evidences to the Assessing Officer for his comments and in contravention of Rule 46A, Ld. CIT(A) accepted these documents which is bad in law. In this regard, Ld. DR relied on the judgement

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Southern Health Foods Private Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 2237/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2237/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Southern Health Foods Private Income Tax, Limited, Khivraj Complex-1, Corporate Circle 3(1), Third Floor No. 477- 480, Chennai Nandanam, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 035. [Pan:Aarcs3296E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Easwar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Srikanth, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 11 Days. The Appellant - Revenue Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said

For Appellant: Shri S. Easwar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri G. Srikanth, C.A
Section 68

obtained from the Assessing Officer in respect of the additional evidence and considering the same by the ld. CIT(A) is in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 being not afforded an opportunity to the Assessing Officer. 11. The ld. AR submits that the Assessing Officer