“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

DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Ahmedabad vs. Hiralal Dayaram Thakkar, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 157/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 157, 158 & 159/Ahd/2024 & Cross Objection Nos. 39, 40 & 41/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) बनाम/ Dcit Hiralal Dayaram Thakkar Central Circle-2(4), 1, Nilkanth Complex, Nr. Vs. Ahmedabad Tv-9, Jivraj Park, Gujarat – 380051 Hiralal Dayaram Thakkar & Dcit 1, Nilkanth Complex, Nr. Central Circle-2(4), Tv-9, Jivraj Park, Gujarat Ahmedabad - 380051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanpt3721E (Appellant / Cross Objector) .. (Respondent) Shri Vivek Chavda & Shri Nishit Assessee By : Jesur, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. Dr 06/03/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 12/03/2025

For Appellant: Jesur, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 68

this issue by considering additional evidences and without calling for any remand report from the AO, which was contrary to the provision of Rule 46A of the IT Rules. He, therefore, ITA Nos. 157, 158 & 159/Ahd/2024 A/w. CO Nos. 39, 40 & 41/Ahd/2024 - [Hiralal Dayaram Thakkar] A.Ys ... assessee, which is duly reproduced in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). However, as per provision of Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, the Ld. CIT(A) was prevented from taking into account any additional evidence filed in the course of appeal proceeding, without allowing a reasonable opportunity

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. National Contracting Company Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 909/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.909/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 145

employees’ salaries between NCC India and the assessee books. The Ld. CIT(A) has called for remand report under ITA No.909/Chny/2024 & C.O No.80/Chny/2024 :- 5 -: Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and after examining the accounts has held as under: “4.5.10. After a meticulous examination of the facts, submissions

ITO, Ward-4(4), Gurgaon vs. Tribhawan Kumar Parnami, Gurgaon

ITA 2120/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 153A

rejoinder wherein he has submitted that the sufficient cause of not filing additional evidences during the assessment proceedings has been duly explained in the Rule 46A application, however, the AO has not made any specific remark doubting the same. Further, with respect to the merits of the additional evidences also

Sabu Joseph, Kottayam vs. ITO, Ward 4 Kottayam, Kottayam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 756/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sabu Joseph .......... Appellant Kachanolickal Building, Paduva Akalakunnam, Kottayam 686564 [Pan: Akkpj3906E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4 .......... Respondent Public Library Building, Shastri Road Kottayam 686001 Appellant By: Shri Jijo, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Jijo, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

reversed and remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to admit the additional evidence under rule 46A of the I.T. Rules and decide the issues in appeal on merits in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity hearing to the assessee. 6. In the result

Agrawal Solutions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle- 4(1)(1), Mumbai Aaykar Bhavan

In the result, the cross appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3388/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Snehal Shah & Shri. SiddharthFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia (SR.DR.)

Section 250Section 68

loans availed as revenue expenditure after admitting additional evidence without calling for remand report from the AO which is in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules? 4. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing ... account of share application money received after admitting additional evidence without calling for remand report from the AO which is in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules?" 9. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CITIA) erred in deleting

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Agrawal Solutions Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the cross appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3356/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. Snehal Shah & Shri. SiddharthFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia (SR.DR.)

Section 250Section 68

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Surat vs. Dhiraj Sons Super Market, Surat

In the result, ground No. 2 is also dismissed

ITA 553/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 553/Srt/2024 (Ay 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Dhiraj Sons Super Market, Surat 1(3)(1), Surat, Room No.203, C/O Dhiraj Sons Super Store, बनाम Income Tax Office, Anavil Samarth Sarathi Apartment, Parle, Vs Building, Adajan, Surat-395 009 Point, Surat-395 007 [Pan : Aaifd 6720 A] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 69A

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 IT Rules, 1962. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in taking decision ... thus we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of ld. CIT(A). 14. Ground No. 4 relates to violation of Rule 46A. We find that no specific grievance was raised before us on this issue. Even otherwise, we find that there is violation of Rule 46A

Jiwan Abasan Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 12(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2089/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 14A

documents but the assessee failed to do so. Before the CIT(A) remand report from the AO with respect to the additional evidence under Rule 46A filed by the assessee had been called for. The Ld. CIT(A) after going over the remand report as well as rejoinder filed

Bannavatu Tulasi, Kanchikacherla vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 451/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri K Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. 451/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Baanavatu Tulasi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M.P.P. School, Kopthapet, Ward-1(1), Kanchikacherla, Vijayawada. Krishna-521180. Pan: Afcpt1634C (अपीलधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Mv Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri MV Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 69

made before the Ld. AO. However, the Ld. CIT(A), 4 considering the replies, sought for the remand report from the Ld. AO under Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962 for admission of the additional evidence. The Ld. AO vide the letter dated 24/07/2024 furnished the remand report

Biharibhai Gokalbhai Patel, Anand vs. The ACIT, Intl. Taxn., Vadodara

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

ITA 1849/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2016-17 Biharibhai Gokalbhai Patel Acit, Cir.Int-Taxation 17, Sardar Patel Market Vs Vadodara. Dairy Road, Anand 388 001 Gujarat. Pan : Apopp 8402 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Darshan Belani, Ar Or Shri S.R Shah, Ca Revenue By : Smt.Malarkodi, R., Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/03/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/03/2025

For Respondent: Smt.Malarkodi, R., Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 69

erred in law and facts of the case by rejecting additional evidence produced before him in accordance with the Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, thus, denying justice as the said evidence were necessary to deliver substantial justice in the matter. ii) The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Govind Jairamdas Changlani, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 183/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 68

erred in law and on facts in admitting additional evidences at appellate stage which would be in contravention to the Rules made under Rule 46A of IT Rules. I.T.A No. 183/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 3 ACIT Vs. Shri Govind Jairamdas Changlani (2) The Ld.CIT (A) has erred ... with each ground wise the issue before us. 6. Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue is admission of Additional evidences which is contravention of Rule 46A of the Rules. It is undisputed fact that the assessee responded to the notices by filing reply dated

Sudha Ramani, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 10(3), Chennai

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

ITA 3352/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3352/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sudha Ramani, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Flat A3, 862, Siddharth Manor, Non Corporate Ward 10(3), Poonamallee High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai. Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Ahepr9857M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Assessee Raised 3 Grounds Of Appeal, Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 147Section 251(1)(a)

Having aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) by filing a petition under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962 for admission of additional evidence substantiating the source for investment in the immovable property. The ld. CIT(A) treated

Om Prakash Tantia, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi

ITA 4737/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

onus as per requirement of sec 68 of the Act. The assessee carried the matter before ld. CIT(A) and filed additional evidence under rule 46A of the Rules on which remand report was called wherein the Assessing Officer did not made any adverse comment on the additional documentary evidence ... lender party before AO to prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the party. During the course of appellate proceedings, appellant filed an application under Rule 46A and filed following documents to prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the party: i. Copy of Acknowledgement of IT. Paper Book page

M/S. Bsc C&C Jv, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2963/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshkuldeep, Vs. Cit(A), Village Kastala, Kasmabad, Nfac, New Delhi Tehsil & District Hapur, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bumpk4317F Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/03/2026

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

assessee filed a written submission before the Learned CIT(A) together with additional evidences in terms of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The said written submission is reproduced in pages 4 and 5 of the order of the Learned CIT(A). The Learned CIT(A) also called

Aluminium Industries (Assam) Private Limited, Tinsukia vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tinsukia

ITA 187/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) is seen to have proceeded to confirm the action of the Ld. AO.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 69A

Aggrieved with the action of Ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) where he filed considerable number of documents under Rule 46A of the IT Rules by way of new evidence in support of his claim that the impugned deposits were justified. However, as has been recorded ... unjust, unfair, illegal and invalid in law. 10) The appellant prays that leave be granted to produce additional evidence in terms of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules 1962 at the time of hearing of the appeal. 11) For that the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the interest

Aluminium Industries (Assam) Private Limited, Tinsukia vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Tinsukia

ITA 186/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) is seen to have proceeded to confirm the action of the Ld. AO.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 69A

Manoj Kumar Yadav, Siwan vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Siwan

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

ITA 439/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

being heard to the assessee and also grant an opportunity of representing the case and be heard to the Ld. AO as per rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, if required, and thereby pass an order in accordance with law. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Jaipur vs. Sujeet Singh Chouhan, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes with the above directions and the C

ITA 1361/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalincome Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Jaipur – 302 005 ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Vikash Rajvanshi, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar,JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 250Section 68Section 69A

passed, notwithstanding that such matter was not raised before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or theCommissioner (Appeals), as the case may be, by the appellant. 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 ... section (1) of section 251 or the imposition of penalty under section 271. 7. In view of section 251 of the Act and Rule 46A of the Rules, it is clear that Sub-Rule (2) r.w. Sub-Rule (4), The Ld. CIT(A) is entitled to call for production

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Warangal vs. Sathish Ponnam, Parkal

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 929/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA KA Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR. AR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

officer to examine the additional evidence submitted by the assessee during the course of appeal proceedings and in not calling for remand report under Rule 46A of the LT. Rules, 1962. . The Id CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in directing the AO to estimate the income ... submitted that the learned CIT(A) did not call for remand report on the additional evidences submitted by the assessee as required under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962. Further, the learned CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the income of the assessee @ 10% by treating

Subrata Mukherjee, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 471/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, I.T.A. No.: 471/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Subrata Mukherjee. 1962 shall also be followed, if required. Accordingly, the grounds taken