“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

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

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

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1 1, Chennai vs. Il and Fs Tamilnadu Power Company Limited, Chennai

ITA 1694/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon'Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1332/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1694/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 Il & Fs Tamil Nadu Power Company Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Old No.21, New No.2, Kpr Tower, 4Th Floor, Greams Road, S.O, Nungambakkam Chennai-600 006. [Pan: Aabcf1176A] Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1694/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai Il & Fs Tamil Nadu Power Company Limited, Old No.21, New No.2, Kpr Tower, 4Th Floor, Greams Road, S.O, Nungambakkam Chennai-600 006. [Pan: Aabcf1176A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri.Ashwin, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : The Below Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Appellant Assessee & Revenue For Ay-2018-19 Contesting The Order Of Ld. First Appellate Authority Indicated In Column-E, Herein Below:- S. No. A Appeal Nos. B Ays C Appellant D Cit(A) Order Details E Respondent F 1

For Appellant: Shri.Ashwin, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु कुमार गिरि

Il&Fs Tamilnadu Power Company Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Corp Circle 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1332/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1332/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1694/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 Il & Fs Tamil Nadu Power Company Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, Old No.21, New No.2, Kpr Tower, Corporate Circle-1(1), 4Th Floor, Greams Road, Chennai S.O, Nungambakkam Chennai-600 006. [Pan: Aabcf1176A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1694/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Il & Fs Tamil Nadu Power Company Tax, Limited, Corporate Circle-1(1), Old No.21, New No.2, Kpr Tower, Chennai 4Th Floor, Greams Road, S.O, Nungambakkam Chennai-600 006. [Pan: Aabcf1176A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri.Ashwin, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri.Ashwin, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT

come across cases where the Revenue has contested orders of First appellate Authority for violation of principles of natural justice in as much as Rule 46A was not adhered and adequate opportunity of being heard was denied to the Ld.AO. The present case is classical case where the First Appellate ... natural justice were violated and that the Appellate Authority ought to have waited for submission of remand report. There cannot be any dispute that Rule 46A is a important provision on the statute which gives department a chance to present its case and rather acts like a fretter

ACIT Central Circle 2 (2), Chennai vs. M/S Midas Golden Distilleries Private Limited, Kanchipuram

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2562/CHNY/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2562/Chny/2017 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)

produced by the assessee before him during the appeal proceedings, without giving any opportunity to the AO to examine the same, in contravention of Rule 46A(3) of the I.T. Rules, 1962 as evident from Para 9.3 in page No.26 of the of the Id CIT(A)'s orders

M/S. Esteem Steel (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 401/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(1)

studded diamonds in absence of any documentary evidences provided by the assessee. He submitted that assessee has not submitted any additional evidences under Rule 46A still he proceeded to give benefit to the assessee with regard to mismatch of jewellery. Therefore, he objected to the findings ... wealth tax return is nothing but jewellery declared to the Revenue. Ld. DR submitted that assessee has filed 10 additional evidences under Rule 46A and ld. CIT (A) has not followed the due procedure. We observe that jewellery under wealth tax return cannot be considered as additional evidence, therefore

Income Tax Officer, Panaji vs. Anil Raghuvir Sirsat, Parra Bardez

ITA 289/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 289/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Panaji. . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr D E Robinson [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Manikandan [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 253(2)Section 69A

deletion of additions challenged the impugning the action of Ld. NFAC on merits as well as on the point of violation of provisions of rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 3. Without touching the grounds of appeal, we have heard the rival party’s submission on limited issue ... violation of rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962 and subject to rule 18 (supra) perused the material placed on record and considered the facts in the light of settled position of law. We note that in the course of assessment proceedings, the respondent assessee not only failed to file

The ACIT., Mehsana Circle, Mehsana vs. M/S. B & C Energy Infra Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and the appeal

ITA 1674/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Rushin Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 220(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

erred in law and on facts in admitting the additional evidences without drawing satisfaction on one or more of the circumstances laid down in Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules 1962, when the AO has given ample opportunities to the assessee to furnish the requisite deails. ii) Whether

M/S. B & C Energy Infra Ltd., Mehsana vs. The DCIT, Circle Mehasana, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and the appeal

ITA 1553/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Rushin Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 220(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Mudigundam Srinivasamurthy Manjunath, Mysuru vs. DCIT Circle- 1(1) and Tps, Mysuru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 2295/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

during the assessment proceedings. Even though, appellant has submitted the documentary evidences at the time of filing of appeal in terms of Rule 46A; no such any application under Rule 46A has been filed by the appellant during the appellate proceedings despite number of opportunities as mentioned above. In view ... submission of application in terms of Rule 46A and non-compliance during the appellate proceedings, the documents submitted during the filing of appeal do not hold their relevance and the same are held to be rejected. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Mahendra Hemraj Jain, Mumbai

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

ITA 5313/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, 19(3)(1) Mahendra Hemraj Jain 405, 4Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, 10 Hindustan Building, 6Th Lalbaug Vs. Kumbharwada Lane, M.S.Ali Mumbai-400012 Road,Mumbai-400004 Pan No. Aaipj 7749 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Shyam AgarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)

assessing officer should also be provided a fair opportunity for commenting on the additional evidence filed by the assessee in terms of rule 46A of the income Tax rules, 1962. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue and dispute and restore the matter

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Uttamchand Rajmal Jain, Mumbai

In the result the cross objection filed by the assessee stands allowed in terms of grounds 2, 5 and 7 and the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4714/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

revenue’s appeal, challenge is against the addition being deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) by not following the procedure laid down under Rule 46A. 2.2 We have perused the legal issue raised by the assessee. It is noted that these grounds goes to the root cause of the assessment

Ranee Narah, Guwahati vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati

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

ITA 84/GTY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati23 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 68Section 69

erred in confirming the same. 5. For that Learned CIT Appeals is not justified in stating that appellant failed to comply the provision of Rule 46A of IT Rules in the facts of the case. 6. For that the learned Assessing Officer is not justified in charging the following interest

Ganapati Builders Limited, Bargarh vs. ITO, Baragarh Ward, Bargarh

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 435/CTK/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Him.

Section 250Section 250(1)Section 263Section 40Section 43BSection 68Section 69A

erred in rejecting the documents submitted during the appellant proceedings on technical ground of non submission of application for admitting the additional evidences under rule 46A even when he could have used his power under rule 46A (4) read with section 250(1) as such documents goes to the root ... refused to take the cognizance of the said documents on the ground that the new evidence was not filed in keeping with Rule 46A of the IT Rules. In this manner, a primary argument of the Ld. AR was denial of opportunity leading to an adverse finding

Kesar Singh Chahal, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Fatehabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1098/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 148Section 69A

record that assessment order was an ex-parte order, however before the CIT(A), assessee has submitted the complete details and filed application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Act. The ld. CIT(A) called for the Remand Report of the AO whose copy is available on page

Dhruvalkumar Sadhubhai Patel, Nadiad vs. The ACIT, Anand Circle, Anand

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

ITA 243/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Khandelwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR & Shri

Section 148Section 69A

erred in confirming the addition made by assessing officer without properly appreciating the additional evidence furnished before Hon’ble CIT(A) under Rule 46A of the Income tax Rules. ITA Nos. 242&243/Ahd/2024 Dhruvalkumar Sadhubhai Patel vs. ACIT Asst. Years

Dhruvalkumar Sadhubhai Patel, Nadiad vs. The ACIT, Anand Circle, Anand

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

ITA 242/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Khandelwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR & Shri

Section 148Section 69A

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Ramco Industries Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3045/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Respondent: Mr.S. Muralidhar, FCA

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 801A(7)Section 80I

allowing the deduction claimed u/s.80IA of the Act. 11. For completeness, we would like to observe that there is no violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 since the acknowledgment given by the department when assessee filed Form No.10CCB on 12.09.2012 can’t be termed ... assessment record, can’t be termed as new evidence filed by the assessee and therefore, there is no question of violation of Rule 46A and therefore, such a ground of the Revenue is devoid of merits and dismissed. 12. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order

Veppur Milk Producers Co-Op. Society Ltd., Cuddalore vs. ITO, Ward-4, Cuddalore

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

ITA 2988/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Respondent: Mr.R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT

Section 144

cash deposits. However, the Ld.CIT(A) refused to admit the evidences on the specious plea that the assessee didn’t file any application under Rule 46A(1) of the of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and thereafter, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the ex parte order ... then the assessee certainly would have complied, by filing an application and thereafter, the Ld.CIT(A) could have decided the issue in accordance with Rule 46A and thereafter, proceeded to adjudicate the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in accordance with sub-section (6) of section

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Reji Abraham, Chennai

In the result, CO of the assessee vide CO-53/Chny/2024 is dismissed

ITA 1762/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita-1762 / Chny/2024, Assessment Years-2011-12 आयकर अपील सं./Co-53 / Chny/2024, Assessment Years-2011-12 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Reji Abraham, Tax, Corp-Circle-1(1) No.113, Janapriya Crest, Chennai. Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. [Pan: Adqpr6864A] आयकर अपील सं./Co-53 / Chny/2024, Assessment Years-2011-12 Reji Abraham, Assistant Commissioner Of Income No.113, Janapriya Crest, Tax, Corp-Circle-1(1) Pantheon Road, Chennai. Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. [Pan: Adqpr6864A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. N.Arjun Raj, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : The Below Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue For Ay-2011-12 & Ay-2011-12 Contesting The Order Of Ld. First Appellate Authority Indicated Column-E, Herein Below:-

For Appellant: Mr. N.Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT

Section 2(22)

Brief factual matrix as evident in para 5.1 of the order of Ld. CIT(A) is that the appellant had filed additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The Ld. CIT(A) had through his letter dated 08.01.2016 addressed to the Ld.AO ask for submission of remand ... more than 7 long years, regularly pleading the Ld. AO to furnish the remand report and all of which fell on deaf ears. 4.0 Rule 46A entitle a taxpayer to furnish additional evidences before the Ld. First Appellate Authority if it was prevented by sufficient cause to file the same

ACIT, Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Rihting Coating Technology (India) Pvt.Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1991/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 68

justified in admitting the additional evidence produced by the assessee without giving opportunity to the revenue in violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rule, 1962?” 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 on 15/09/2014 declaring ... behalf of the Revenue that the additional evidence furnished by the Assessee was considered by the CIT(A) without considering the provisions contained in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules 1962 (for short ‘IT Rules’). We do not find any merit in the aforesaid contentions advanced on behalf

Income Tax Officer -1(1), Raipur vs. Suresh Kumar Jethwani, Raipur

The appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 451/RPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.451/Rpr/2024 Co. No.18/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Suresh Kumar Jethwani Prop. Reena Electronics, Oppo. Manju Mamta, M.G.Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aebpj7686N ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250(4)Section 69A

certain additional evidences had been relied upon by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC while providing relief to the assessee which were not as per Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Ld. Sr. DR further submitted that the relief was granted by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC