← 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

Sandeep Prasad, Panagarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Durgapur

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

ITA 1399/KOL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: the CIT(A), but the appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) and the learned counsel of Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29/11/2023.

Section 144Section 148Section 250

would provide adequate opportunity of being heard and also consider admitting new evidence, if filed by the assessee, within the provisions of Rule 46A of the IT Rules. 4 Sandeep Prasad 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Sri. Krishnappa Vinodkumar, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1870/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CA
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 68

facts filed before the Ld.CIT(A) and in paragraph 6.3, the assessee had sought for an opportunity to file the additional evidences under rule 46A of the Rules at the time of hearing of the appeal but unfortunately the Ld.CIT(A) without granting such an opportunity had passed the order ... submitted that the appellant has the available supporting documentary evidences and confirmations, which he undertakes to submit as additional evidence in terms of Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962. The appellant also craves your Honour's leave to file detailed written submissions along with additional evidence under Rule 46A

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shree Samsthan Gokarn Parthagali Jeevotham Math, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 49/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarvs. Shree Samsthan Dcit(Exemptions) – 2(1) Gokarn Parthagali Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Jeevotham Math Mtnl, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400031. Cumbala Hill, Mumbai – 400026. Pan/Gir No. Aaaas6210M (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 115Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(3)Section 80G(5)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is right in admitting the additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to submit documentary evidence before the AO in support of the claim, despite ... allowing the appeal of the assessee by treating the amount received by the assessee as corpus donation in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 3. In this regard, we have heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record, judgements cited

Gabriel India Limited, Pune, Maharashtra vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, 5(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3998/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 28

also reproduced the aforesaid directions of this Tribunal in the impugned order. However, rejected assessee’s prayer for adducing additional evidence under rule 46A of the income tax rules 1961. It transpires that learned CIT(A) has not made bonafide efforts to decide the issue afresh on merit

Harvinder Singh Bullar, Vpo Ranjitgarh, Muktsar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Muktsar

ITA 573/ASR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 69A

supporting documentary evidence by way of an indexed paper-book consisting of 129 pages along with an application for admission of fresh evidence under Rule 46A. It is further observed from the appellate order (paragraph – 6) that fresh evidences filed by the assessee has been forwarded to the AO, from ... accordingly . The observation of the Ld CIT(A) on this issue are reproduced as under: “In absence of the report of the AO under Rule 46A of the Rules the additional evidence is admitted and the appeal is decided accordingly”. 6. The assessee before the tribunal has filed two sets

Alka Kumari, Bengaluru vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Patna

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

ITA 612/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

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 this appeal are allowed

Jitendra Kumar, Arwal vs. Addl/JCIT(A)-2 Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 394/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 250(6)Section 270A(2)

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

Anita Garg, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Alwar

ITA 1363/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

regards Column No.12 of Form No.35, ld. CIT(A) was of the view that word‘’No’’ was written, and further that no application under Rule 46A having been filed, the additional evidence sought to be filed during the appellate proceedings could not be considered. In other words, in Form No.35

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hydreabad vs. Thrissur Expressway Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.873/Hyd

ITA 873/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28

facts & law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in admitting new evidences in the form of paper book containing in the submission dated 01.02.2024 under rule 46A of LT.Rules, 1962 without providing any opportunity to assessing officer. . On facts & law of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the ground

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Hyderabad vs. Thrissur Expressway Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.873/Hyd

ITA 872/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28

facts & law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in admitting new evidences in the form of paper book containing in the submission dated 01.02.2024 under rule 46A of LT.Rules, 1962 without providing any opportunity to assessing officer. . On facts & law of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the ground

Hilton Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 676/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Hilton Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 5(3) 9/12, Lal Bazar Street, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Mercantile Building, Block-B, Chowringhee Square, Vs. 3Rd Floor, No.10, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch1011P Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar Revenue By : Shri S Datta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri S Datta, CIT DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 68

observations of the ld. AO, dismissed the appeal of the assessee by noting in Para 5.4 that the application for additional evidences filed under Rule 46A is rejected as the assessee has failed to demonstrate the sufficient cause under Rule 46A(1)(b) and (c) of the IT Rules ... authorities by submitting that assessee was not compliant before the ld. AO and therefore the ld. CIT (A) has rightly rejected the application under Rule 46A of the Rules when the ld. CIT (A) found that the conditions were not fulfilled by the assessee. The ld DR ,therefore, submitted that

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru vs. Nagarjuna Education Scoeity, Bengaluru

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

ITA 479/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR
Section 11Section 12A

building when such a submission was not made during the course of Assessment Proceedings and the same is in contravention of the provisions of Rule 46A of the I.T.Rules, 1962; 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend all or any of the grounds of Appeal before

Sri. T . Rajesh(HUF), Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Shimoga

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

ITA 2011/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Gale, Standing counsel for department
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

held that 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 and accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) held

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Adar Hotels Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 5519/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee: A.Y. : 2014-15 C.O. No. 255/Mum/2024 : A.Y. : 2014-15 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5519/M/24)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah &For Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr.DR
Section 147

contended that the Ld CIT(A) has considered new evidences without confronting them with the AO and has thus violated the provisions of Rule 46A of IT Rules. We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has examined and considered new evidences and hence, there is violation of Rule 46A

DCIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan vs. Ggeopreneur Realty Private Limited, Malad West, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2186/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mahaveer Jain & Shobhit Mishra, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R
Section 133(6)Section 194JSection 68

towards un-secured loan and deleting the addition of Rs. 41,41,016/- towards interest, without following the due procedure laid down in Rule 46A of I.T.Rules, 1961 i.e. without recording the reason for admission of additional evidence as specified in clause 1 of Rule 46A"? 2. Ground No.2" Whether ... plausible reply, the AO made the impugned disallowance/additions. 5. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed additional evidence and requested for admission under Rule 46A. The ld. CIT(A) was convinced with the additional evidence and admitted the same and called for a remand report from the AO. Vide

Prasad Jaykar Shetty, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Thane

ITA 3651/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Prasad Jaykar Shetty Ito, Ward-3(2) A-43, Building No. 2 Ashar I.T. Park Vishram Tower Vs. 6Th Floor, Room No. Wagle Estate 04, Ambika Nagar, Thane West-400 604. Wagle Estate Thane-400 604. Pan : Aozps2736L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.D. ChouguleFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Shetty
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

hence the appeal of the appellant was dismissed, as the appellant failed to invoke any exception provided under sub-Rule(1) of Rule 46A of I.T. Rules. 4. The appellant escalated the appeal to ITAT and filed an appeal by taking Grounds of Appeal as mentioned in page

Harsha, Jiwana Baghpat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(5) Baraut, Baraut

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

ITA 3527/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Harsha, Ward-1(5), Jiwana Baghpat-250611, Vs. Baraut. Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Adlph3085L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R.K. Gaur, Ca Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/02/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Vide Order U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) Dated 01/11/2023 For The Asst. Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & During This Year Had Purchased An Agricultural Land Measuring 8.8200 Hectare In Auction Jointly With Five Other Persons At A Total Sale Consideration Of Rs.1,50,82,200/-. Beside This A Sum Of Rs. Harsha Vs. Ito 7,55,000/- Was Paid Towards Stamp Duty Making Total Cost Of Land Was At Rs. 1,65,92,000/-. As The Assessee Has Not Filed Any Return Of Income, The Reassessment Proceedings Were Initiated By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 On 29/03/2019. The Assessee Has Not Attended The Reassessment Proceedings & The Finally The Reassessment Order Was Passed U/S 144/147 Of The Act On 7/12/2019 Wherein The Ao Had Made The Addition Of Rs. 27,65,333/- Being His Share In Investment In Acquisition Of The Property From Undisclosed Sources.

Section 144Section 148Section 250

well as law on the subject, the Ld. CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not allowing the appellant application filed under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Act, 1962 for admission of additional evidences and further erred in not considering the evidences filed before him before adjudicating ... officer who made the auction was not empowered to do so and further filed following documents as additional evidences and made a prayer under rule 46A in the Income tax Rules, 1962 for the admission of the same: 1. Auction Allotment letter annexed as Annexure- 2. Cancellation letter from Government

Goutam Medicose, Dhar vs. Partner of Erstwhile Firm, Dhar

ITA 710/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

justified in upholding such illegal action of Ld. AO. 3. On the facts and circumstances and in the law, that the application under rule 46A as additional evidences submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) but the CIT(A) has not considered and not adjudicated properly

Goutam Medicose, Dhar vs. ITO, Dhar

ITA 709/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

justified in upholding such illegal action of Ld. AO. 3. On the facts and circumstances and in the law, that the application under rule 46A as additional evidences submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) but the CIT(A) has not considered and not adjudicated properly

Vijay Kumar Vijayvergiya, Jaipur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1155/JPR/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Vedant Agarwal, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 2(22)Section 250Section 68

copy of confirmation duly signed by the creditors Sh. Sushil Kumar Jain), same were first time produced before the Ld. CIT (A), and hence Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 is applicable here. In compliance with Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 the Ld. CIT (A) called