← 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

Rishikesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2431/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 245Section 250Section 250(4)

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, 1962 shall also be followed, if required. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in his appeal are allowed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 1284/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 263

facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee violating the provisions of Rule 46A of the income Tax Rules by admitting additional documents from the assessee and relying on the same without calling for the comments

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Kalyan, Kalyan West vs. Awami Imadi Fund Bhiwandi, Bhiwandi

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

ITA 5871/MUM/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1) Awami Imadi Fund Bhiwandi 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Wayale Nagar, Madrasa Arabia Miftahul Uloom, Vs. Khadakpada, Kalyan West - 421301. Bhusal Mohalla, Bhiwandi. Pan/Gir No.Aaeta0102F (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Shakil Mohammed Ayyub Momin (Manager) Respondent By : Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2018-19. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: A. “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Submissions Made By The Assessee During Appellate Proceedings Were In The Nature Of Additional Evidences & Therefore Erred In Not Allowing The A.O. To Examine The Additional Evidence Admitted By Them As Per The Provisions U/S 46A(3) Of The 1. T. Rules, 1962. B. The Appellant Prays That The Order Of The Cit(A) May Be Set Aside & That Of The Assessing Officer Be Restored. Amami Imadi Fund Bhiwandi

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia (Sr. DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 46A(3)Section 68

ground that the ld. AO was not given an opportunity to examine the additional evidences filed by the assessee as per Rule 46A(3) of the I. T. Rules, 1962. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The learned Departmental Representative ... confronted the evidences filed by the assessee to the ld. AO, thereby, violating the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Rule 46A(3) of the I.T. Rules, 1962. We therefore deem it fit to remand these issues back to the ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication

ITO, Ward 2(1) Thane, Thane vs. Bharat Mithalal Jain, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5681/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2016-17 Ito, Ward-2(1), Thane Bharat Mithalal Jain

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr. DR
Section 122(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250Section 46A(3)Section 69

Revenue is that ld. CIT(A) has not allowed the assessing officer to examine the additional evidences admitted under the provisions of Rule 46A(3) of the I.T. Rules, 1962. The assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act was finalized in the case of the assessee ... order. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, it is evident that ld. CIT(A) has not accepted any additional evidences under Rule 46A(3) of the I.T. Rules, 1962. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the solitary ground of appeal filed by the Revenue that

Prema, Chengalpattu vs. ITO, Ncw-22(1), Tambaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2324/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram
Section 139(1)Section 50C

therefore, ought to have admitted the relevant evidences filed by the assessee, and if necessary, ought to have called for remand report under Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter in short “the Rules”). However, according to the Ld.AR, the first appellate authority miserably failed to do his duty

Prema, Chengalpattu vs. ITO, Ncq-22(1), Tambaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2323/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram
Section 139(1)Section 50C

therefore, ought to have admitted the relevant evidences filed by the assessee, and if necessary, ought to have called for remand report under Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter in short “the Rules”). However, according to the Ld.AR, the first appellate authority miserably failed to do his duty

Prema, Chengalpattu vs. ITO, Ncw-22(1), Tambaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2322/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram
Section 139(1)Section 50C

therefore, ought to have admitted the relevant evidences filed by the assessee, and if necessary, ought to have called for remand report under Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter in short “the Rules”). However, according to the Ld.AR, the first appellate authority miserably failed to do his duty

Prema, Chengalpattu vs. ITO, Ncw-22(1), Tambaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2321/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram
Section 139(1)Section 50C

therefore, ought to have admitted the relevant evidences filed by the assessee, and if necessary, ought to have called for remand report under Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter in short “the Rules”). However, according to the Ld.AR, the first appellate authority miserably failed to do his duty

Karnataka Tyre Agencies, Shimoga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3, Shimoga

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

ITA 1914/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Hiran Krishnaswamy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144

submissions made before the ld. CIT(A) were not backed by substantial evidence. 9. Furthermore, the ld. CIT(A) did not fully comply with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, which regulates the admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage. 10. Considering these circumstances, I find it appropriate

Income Tax Officer, Vijayapur vs. Vikram Dalichand Bandari, Vijayapur

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1390/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2014-15

For Appellant: Sri Sudheendra B.R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

rebut. The ld. D.R. also submitted that ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in admitting additional evidence which is not in accordance with the rule 46A (3) of the I.T. Rules, 1962. The ld. D.R. further submitted that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is not justified in directing

Late Mahesh Ramanlal Modi L/H Manish Mahesh Modi, Bharuch vs. ACIT Circle-1, Bharuch

In the result, ground No. VII of appeal raised by the assessee is also allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 999/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing) Late Mahesh Ramanlal Modi, A.C.I.T., Through L-H Manish Mahesh Modi, Circle-1, Vs. Near Shakuntal Apartment, Dahej Bharuch. Bypass Road At Nandelav, Bharuch-392001 (Gujarat) Pan No. Adfpm 4030 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 23(5)Section 24Section 254(1)Section 40Section 69A

applicable. (Ill) Deemed rental of Rs. 1,26,000: (IV) The learned CIT(A) was not justified in not entertaining additional evidence under Rule 46A, particularly when the appellant demonstrated that he was deprived of the reasonable opportunity during the assessment. (1) Despite the fact that property was pending approval ... Addition in respect of debtors of Rs.6,55,944: (1) The learned CIT(A) was not justified in not entertaining additional evidence under Rule 46A, particularly when the appellant demonstrated that he was deprived of the reasonable opportunity during the assessment. (2) On the facts and circumstances of the case

Vipul Lallubhai Kukadiya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(4), Surat

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

ITA 1051/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1051/Srt/2024 (Ay 2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Vipul Lallubhai Kukadiya Income Tax Officer, Ward- 126, Gitanagar Society-2, 2(3)(4), Surat, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम Near Sitaram Chawk, Punagam, Majura Gate, Vs Surat-394 101 Surat-395 001 [Pan : Awppk 7950 P] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 144Section 254(1)Section 44ASection 69A

reason for non-compliance of notice during the course of assessment proceedings. And that the assessee does not fulfil the condition prescribed in Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962, for admission of additional evidence. On merit, the Assessing Officer in his remand report submitted that assessee has under reported ... held that entire cash deposits can never be income of the assessee. 7. We find that on filing submission and application under Rule 46A, the submission of assessee was forwarded to Assessing Officer for obtaining his remand report. The Assessing Officer objected against the admission of additional evidence though

Abhijit Sharad Phadke, Thane vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 406/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir HunnargikarFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia, (SR. DR)
Section 144Section 250Section 44A

considered view that the assessee may be given one more opportunity by admitting the additional evidences filed by the assessee as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and the ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the same and decide the issue on the merits

Mahesh Kumar Choudhary, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Circle - 36(1), Kolkata

ITA 2192/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Him & Therefore, It Is Mentioned

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

whether any documentary evidence other then the evidence produced during the course of proceedings before Income-tax Authority has been filed in terms of Rule 46A" the assessee has mentioned "Yes". The additional evidence filed is incomplete and haphazard. I find that in this case, the assessee furnished his return ... assessee. However, no petition has been filed by the assessee for admission of additional evidence justifying and explaining as to under which Clause of Rule 46A(1), the assessee's case is covered and as to why the additional evidence should be admitted. Therefore, I am of the considered view

Sushiladevi Parasmaljijain, Hubballi vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(4), Hubli

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

ITA 2041/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vishal S Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 142(1)Section 234BSection 69A

details submitted during the appellate proceeding were in the nature of additional evidence which were submitted were without proper application of provision of rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. Further, the learned CIT(A) held that the additional evidence furnished by the assessee were incomplete and not supporting ... However, the learned CIT(A) not considered the detail provided by the assessee by holding that these were additional evidences filed without compliance of rule 46A of IT Rules. 13.3 From the summary of month wise cash, I note that the assessee has shown cash sales on an average

Balwant Singh Dhindsa, Adv. So Kartar Singh, #185 Street No. 11, Punia Colony, Sangrur, Punjab vs. ITO Ward Sangrur, Punjab

In the result, appeal of the assessee is

ITA 800/CHANDI/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Feb 2025AY 2012-2013
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ न्यायपीठ, चण्डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH 'SMC' CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH

Nilaa Charitable Trust, Villupuram vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-1, Chennai

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

ITA 3126/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Mr. Sendamarai Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 11Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. Before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee has filed additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The additional evidences that sought to be admitted are as follows:- i)280 Individual files maintained by the trust

Anil Kumar, Gaya vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gaya

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

ITA 440/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna27 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kr. Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT
Section 250

that the assessee had produced substantial evidence. It was the submission that the Ld. CIT(A) violated the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 did not consider the evidence. It was the submission that there are two basic additions — one in regard to the estimation ... submission that the assessee has not produced the evidence before the Assessing Officer. There is violation of rule 46A in regard to the evidence produced before the Ld. CIT(A). The violation of Rule 46A as recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) has not been challenged by the assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Patna vs. Lesley Barbara Galstaun, Patna

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 288/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna27 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 287/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Lesley Barbara Galstaun,………………….....Appellant 0, Lesdon Villa, 18, New Patliputra Colony, Patna-800013, Bihar [Pan:Aavpg0948A] -Vs.- Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,…………………………………………………….Respondent Circle-6, Patna - A N D - I.T.A. No. 288/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,….,Appellant Circle-4, Patna, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 4Th Floor, Dak Bangalow Crossing, Frazer Road, Patna-800001, Bihar -Vs.- Lesley Barbara Galstaun,………………….....Respondent Lesdon Villa, 18, New Patliputra Colony, Patna-800013, Bihar [Pan:Aavpg0948A] Appearances By: Shri D.V. Pathy, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee 1 & Lesley Barbara Galstaun

Section 144Section 69A

partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and also the ld. CIT(Appeals) has not admitted the additional evidences filed by the assessee under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. However, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has considered part of the additional evidences filed by the assessee and partly allowed ... evidences/some documents filed by the assessee saying that the additional evidence is to be admitted only if it falls within the conditions stipulated in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that

Lesley Barbara Galstaun, Patna vs. Dc/Ac Circle-6, Patna

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 287/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna27 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 287/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Lesley Barbara Galstaun,………………….....Appellant 0, Lesdon Villa, 18, New Patliputra Colony, Patna-800013, Bihar [Pan:Aavpg0948A] -Vs.- Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,…………………………………………………….Respondent Circle-6, Patna - A N D - I.T.A. No. 288/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,….,Appellant Circle-4, Patna, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 4Th Floor, Dak Bangalow Crossing, Frazer Road, Patna-800001, Bihar -Vs.- Lesley Barbara Galstaun,………………….....Respondent Lesdon Villa, 18, New Patliputra Colony, Patna-800013, Bihar [Pan:Aavpg0948A] Appearances By: Shri D.V. Pathy, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee 1 & Lesley Barbara Galstaun

Section 144Section 69A

partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and also the ld. CIT(Appeals) has not admitted the additional evidences filed by the assessee under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. However, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has considered part of the additional evidences filed by the assessee and partly allowed ... evidences/some documents filed by the assessee saying that the additional evidence is to be admitted only if it falls within the conditions stipulated in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that