“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-Circle 7 Pune, Bodhi Tower Salisbury Park Pune vs. Trio Chemsucrotech Eng. Projects Pvt. Ltd, Pune

ITA 1047/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)

and to whomsoever it may concern. 14. We would also like to extract the copy of certificate issued by Mr

Unity SMC Joint Venture., Mumbai vs. DCIT-22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 225/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Unity Smc Joint Venture, Dy. Cit-22(1), 1252, Pushpanjali Apartment, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Old Prabhadevi Road, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aabfu 9813 C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ashish Heliwal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Apurva Gandhi

Section 40

course of appellate proceedings, . In the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee filed an application under Rule 46A of the Income-tax the assessee filed an application under Rule 46A of the Income the assessee filed an application under Rule 46A of the Income Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred ... terms of Rule is eligibility of additional evidence for admission in terms of Rule is eligibility of additional evidence for admission in terms of Rule 46A of the Rules. The Ld. CIT(A) has declined to admit the 46A of the Rules. The Ld. CIT(A) has declined 46A

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Sumangal Commodities Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross-objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2211/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer Sumangal Commodities Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Marg, Mumbai- Vs. A Wing, 1St Floor, Shah Arcade, 400020. 1, Rani Sati, Malad, Maharashtra-400097. Pan: Aagcs 4844 K (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.192/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita 2211/Mum/2024) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sumangal Commodities Private Income Tax Officer Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Mk A Wing, 1St Floor, Shah Arcade, Vs. Marg, Mumbai- 1, Rani Sati, Malad, 400020. Maharashtra-400097. Pan: Aagcs 4844 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate & Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 250Section 68

made by the Assessing Officer u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without calling for remand report from the AO as mandated under Rule 46A of the I.T. Act. 6. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the grounds be set aside and confirm the order ... said parties. However, we find that during the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Act on 11.06.2023 i.e. affidavits of the directors of lender companies as placed in the paper book from page

Mahanth Kumar Singh, Muzaffarpur vs. ITO, Muzaffarpur

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

ITA 232/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna20 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 250Section 69A

heard and to make any further submissions he wants to make in support of the relief claimed 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

Rukmani Devi, Jaipur vs. ACIT Holding Charge of ITO Ward-7(2), Jaipur

ITA 1446/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकरअपील सं./ITA No. 1446/JP/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Rukmani Devi 8, Mukhiya Abad Vidhani Sanganer, Jaipur 302 017 बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward 7(2) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.:AWLPD 2180 M अपीलार्थी / Appellant निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assessee by : Shri Vijay Gupta, CA., Ms. Apeksha Kalra, Adv. राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Sh. Manoj Kumar, JCIT-DR. सुनवाई की तारीख / Date

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Gupta, CA. & Ms. Apeksha Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, JCIT-DR

Section 148Section 250

authorities below. 7 SMT. RUKMANI DEVI VS ITO, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR 20. We have gone through the application. It has been filed under Rule 46A of IT Rules. It was for the appellant to satisfy that the assessee could not produce the documents now sought to be produced before

The Thavar Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandli Limited, Banaskantha vs. The ACIT/DCIT, Circle-Gandhinagar, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1556/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

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

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 46ASection 80PSection 80P(1)(b)

Post, the assessee filed appeal with the delay of 110 days. The assessee also filed various details of deposits in the bank by invoking Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. The Ld. CIT(A) condoned the delay in filing the appeal, however not entertained application u/s. 46A of the Rules ... additional evidences as the same were not provided during the course of assessment proceedings. But the appellant assessee has not filed any application under Rule 46A of the Income-tax rules for filing of additional documents before this Appellate authority. …………………… In the light of above facts and discussions at point

The Thavar Dudh Utpadak Sahkari Mandli Limited, Banaskantha vs. The ACIT/DCIT, Circle- Gandhinagar, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1555/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 46ASection 80PSection 80P(1)(b)

Laxmi Babu Debnath, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7 (1), Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2877/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms.Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2876 & 2877/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 201-12 Laxmi Babu Debnath, V The Income Tax Officer, Level 3, Riverside Business S Ward-7(1), Pune. Bay, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune – 411001. Pan: Acpyd2630F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Neelesh Khandelwal – Ar Revenue By Shri Abhishek Meshtram - Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income

Section 144Section 147Section 250

delay. However, ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay. We, however on considering the fact that assessee has filed various additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules for explaining the source of alleged cash deposit and has also provided the reasons for delay in filing the appeal

Laxmi Babu Debnath, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2876/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Section 144Section 147Section 250

Tanuja Balkrishna Gidithuri, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19 (3) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6606/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ms. Tanuja Balkrishna Ito -19(3)(5), Gidithuri, Piramal Chamber, Vs. 38/A, 1St Floor, Parekhwadi, Mumbai-400012. 202, V.P. Road, Prarthana Samag, Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Aakpg 8943 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

evidences stating that A) Not admitting the additional evidences stating that none of the excepti none of the exceptions/circumstances mentioned in ons/circumstances mentioned in Rule 46A was present in the appellant's case Rule 46A was present in the appellant's case (1) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ... additional evidences stating that none of the exceptions/circumstances mentioned stating that none of the exceptions/circumstances mentioned stating that none of the exceptions/circumstances mentioned in Rule 46A was present in the appellant's case. in Rule 46A was present in the appellant's case. 2) The learned CIT(A) failed

Ram Kumar, Supaul vs. ITO, 3(5), Saharsa

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

ITA 464/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

produced during appellate proceedings for the first time amount to additional evidence for which the appellant has not furnished any reasons as provided in Rule 46A of the IT Rules, as to why these details were not produced before the AO and why these details should be admitted as additional ... heard to make any further submission he wants to make in support of the grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 shall also be followed and a remand report may be called for, if required. Accordingly, the grounds taken

Madhuri Devi, Saharsa vs. ITO Ward- 3 (4), Saharsa

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

ITA 238/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 148Section 250Section 69A

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

Hajara Basheer, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Kozhikode

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

ITA 902/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Hajara Basheer .......... Appellant Hibas Kolathara P.O. Cheruvannur, Kozhikode 673655 [Pan: Ainph6373G] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1(2), Kozhikode

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

opinion the approach adopted by the CIT(A) is hyper technical. When the appellant filed an application for admitting additional evidence in accordance with rule 46A, the CIT(A) should have disposed of the application in accordance with law. Therefore, the matter is remitted back to the file

Renjith Jacob, Thodupuzha vs. ITO, Thodupuzha

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

ITA 474/COCH/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Feb 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

observe that the ld.CIT(A) has discarded the evidences filed before him on the ground that the assessee could not file any application under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules along with evidences. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee contended that the assessee has duly explained

Smt. Meenakshi Mittal, Jagraon vs. ITO, Ward-1, Jagraon

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

ITA 1132/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

For Respondent: Shri S.K. Mukhi, Advocate

Section 142(1)Section 148

been made is below taxable limit as such also the addition deserves to be deleted. 10 The Appellant is filing separate application under rule 46A of the LT. Act, 1961 for production of Additional Evidence, as the same could not be produced earlier. We shall be pleased to clarify ... relevant contents thereof read as under: "2. In this regard, your goodself had sought the comments on admissibility of additional evidence produce under Rule 46A and grounds of appeal a. The Assessee through counsel had appealed before your goodself that the Ld. Income Tax Officer has erred in reopening

Vijakumar Jagannath Agarwal, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Office, Guj-C-1-104, Circle 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1985/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1985/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vijaykumar Jagannath The Income Tax Office Agarwal बनाम / Gujarat C-1-104 V/S. B-79, Sumel Business Park Circle-2(1)(1) Behind New Cloth Market Ahmedabad - 380 015 Ahmedabad – 380 002 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aazpa 8345 В (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mitul A. Ruparayl, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 17/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 19/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)"] Dated 27/09/2024, For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18, Wherein The Cit(A) Upheld The Addition Of Rs.30,26,460/- Made By The Assessing Officer (“Ao") Under Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act"). 2. Following Grounds Of Appeal Are Raised By The Assessee Before Us:

For Appellant: Shri Mitul A. Ruparayl, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR

Section 69A

Appellant reserves his right to submit all the details in connection with the addition as fresh evidence as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 at the time of hearing this appeal. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of aadhaar details and therefore making the addition under section

Nitesh Mandhyan Lr Hiranand Mandhyan, Bhubaneswar vs. Income Tax Officer, Manicktala

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

ITA 2056/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

shall allow an opportunity to the assessee’s Legal Representative of being heard and also decide the appeal in accordance with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.Hence, all other grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad vs. Azaj Farooqi, Secunderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 63/HYD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.63/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Azaj Farooqi Income Tax Hyderabad Central Circle-3(4) [Pan :Aafpf5292G] Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

Section 132Section 69A

submitted that, when the assessee has filed additional evidence, the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have given opportunity to the Assessing Officer in terms of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962, before granting relief to the assessee. Therefore, he submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) should

Azaj Farooqi, Secunderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cirtcle -3(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 110/HYD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

Section 132Section 69A

M/S. Radhika Commercial Pvt. Ltd., 24-Parganas North vs. I.T.O., Ward - 14(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1307/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Your Honours That In The Present Case, The Appellate Order Is Dated 24.11.2023. Accordingly, The Last Date To File The Appeal Was 23.01.2024. As Such There Is A Delay Of 141 Days In Filing The Appeal. Regarding Delay In Filing Of Appeal, It Is Submitted That The Hearing Notices Dated 21.09.2023, 18.10.2023 & 06.11.2023 Were Sent At Incorrect Email Ids Ie. Aabcr2237H@Gmail.Com Sdacasit@Gmail.Com Whereas The Correct Email Id Was It.Vkma@Gmail.Com Which Was Duly Mentioned In The Returns Of Income & At

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 68

part, would do well to present the full facts and documents before the Ld. CIT(A), and if required file additional details under Rule 46A of the IT Rules so that a fair assessment of the income of the assessee can be made. 5. In result, the appeal