“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

Janak Sureshbhai Patel L/H of Late Arunaben Sureshbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. Thje Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1790/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Kamlesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54Section 54F

dismissed the appeal of the assessee solely on the ground that assessee had failed to submit the reasons for additional evidence, by simply quoting Rule 46A of IT Rules which prescribes the circumstances under which the assessee can file additional evidences before the ld. CIT(A). We find that

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Athena Global Technologies Limited (Formerly M/S Vjil Consulting Limited), Hyderabad

In the result, the ground nos

ITA 895/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43BSection 68

addition of Rs.9,05,79,084/- made u/s 68 by admitting additional evidence without providing an opportunity to the Assessing officer as required under Rule 46A of IT rules. iv) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of expenses of Rs.98,68,902/- out of Rs.1 ... erred in deleting disallowance of Rs.44,12,893/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) by admitting additional evidences violating Rule 46A of IT Rules. vi) Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.1,48,354/- made by invoking the provisions u/s 14A r.w.Rule 8D. vii) Ld. CIT(Appeals) ought

Athena Global Technologies Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the ground nos

ITA 1266/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43BSection 68

Sureshkumar Mavjibhai Bhingaradia, Individual, Bharuch vs. The DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 355/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Sureshkumar Mavjibhai Bhingaradia, Vs. The Acit, Plot No.3441/B, Near Pci Chowkdi, Circle – 2(1)(1), Gidc Estate, Bharuch - 393002 Vadodara "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acqpb6047G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Tushar P. Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Advocate Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/02/2025

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 14ASection 250

appellate order. He observed that appellant’s case was not covered by any of the clauses (a) to (d) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. Additional evidence can be admitted only for sufficient and valid reasons. The reason given by appellant is not sufficient ... includes copies of acknowledgement of ITR and STI for the AYs.2010-11 to 2012-13, ledger accounts of various lenders and copy of application under Rule 46A before CIT(A). The same is reproduced for ready reference: “1. Assessee craves leave to place 80 pages as additional evidences on record

Umed Singh Choudhary, Virar East vs. Ward Ward 33(3)(3), Mumbai, Kautaliya Bhavan

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

ITA 5300/MUM/2024[A Y 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh, Sr DR

Section 143(3)

appeal for non-prosecution, more particularly when there is a dated acknowledged stamp on the submissions of 17.09.2019 which contains additional evidences as per rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 3 Umed Singh Choudhary, AY 2016-17 3.2 Ld. Counsel also referred to impugned assessment order to demonstrate

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Thane. vs. Akshaya Ashok Ghole, Thane

ITA 3915/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara () Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Respondent: Shri Keyur Hindocha

evidences, without allowing proceedings and were in the nature of additional evidences, without allowing the Assessing Officer to examine the additional evidences as per Rule 46A(3) the Assessing Officer to examine the additional evidences as per Rule 46A(3) the Assessing Officer to examine the additional evidences ... Rule 46A(3) of the L.T. Rules 1962. T. Rules 1962. d. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter or alter any The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter or alter any The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter or alter any ground/grounds, which

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bilaspur vs. Ms Mayura Saria Pvt. Ltd., Bilaspur

ITA 430/RPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 430/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri G. S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

filed before the AO in the assessment proceedings. The submission of the appellant was forwarded to the AO for providing his comments under rule 46A of the Rules. The remand report was not received therefore a reminder for the remand report was issued vide DIN ITBA/NFAC/F/17/2024-25/1066828615(1) for furnishing

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu Circle -1, Chennai vs. Prudential Sugar Corporation Limited, Chitoor

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

ITA 2296/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2296/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Prudential Sugar Corporation Ltu Circle-1, Limited, Chennai. Prudential Nagar, Koppedu Post, Nindramandal, Andhra Pradesh-517587 [Pan: Aaacp4338D] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 250Section 36(1)Section 37

being heard have been hit by the action of the Ld. First Appellate Authority in as much as he has violated provisions of Rule 46A. It was submitted that the Ld. First Appellate Authority entertained additional evidences filed by the assessee before him, which were not submitted before ... deleting the additions giving relief to the assessee. Thus it was argued that the rights of Ld. AO available under rule 46A was violated. A request was accordingly made to remit the file back to the Ld. AO for re-adjudication de novo. 5.0 We have noted that

Ramya Charitable Trust, Kakinada vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 61/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.61/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ramya Charitable Trust V. Ito (Exemption Ward) D.No. 9-11-130 Income Tax Office Elvinpeta, Kakinada – 533004 Aayakar Bhavan Andhra Pradesh Veerabhadrapuram Rajahmundry – 533105 [Pan: Aactr4315H] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 11Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144

perusal of the material available on record Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions made by the assessee by way of petition under Rule 46A of I.T. Rules dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before ... furnish return of income under section 139(4) of the Act. Further the assessee has also not responded except for filing the petition under Rule 46A of I.T.Rules before the First Appellate Authority. The only contention of the assessee is that it has made payment

Income Tax Officer, Vizianagaram vs. Vijayanagaram Wheat Products Private Limited, Kondakarakam

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 312/VIZ/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble

Section 115JSection 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

order of the Ld. AO, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A), assessee filed petition under Rule 46A of IT. Rules r.w.s. 250(4) of the Act for admission of the various documents as additional evidences in support of additions made ... addition under section 68 r.w.s. 11 5BBE of the Act. The same documents were filed before Ld. CIT(A) by way of petition under Rule 46A of LT. Rules. Ld. CIT(A) by exercising his powers vested on him under section 250(4) of the Act has made the following

Redex Enterprise, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the orders passed by the lower authorities are hereby set aside and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 742/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-D.R

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 271ASection 69C

Redex Enterprise vs. ITO 3. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed an appeal before ld. CIT(A) and filed additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. However, the additional evidences were not taken on record by the ld. CIT(A) on the ground that

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. H V Infratex Ltd, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1034/AHD/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Feb 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1034/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assistant Cit H.V. Infratex Ltd. बनाम/ Circle-2(1)(1) 202, Parth Milan Complex V/S. Ahmedabad Nr. Hotel Nest,Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 009 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabch 6794 C (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prakash D. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30 /01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Dated 30.10.2023, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 10/12/2018 Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Asstt. Cit Vs. H.V. Infratex Ltd. Asst. Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Prakash D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 144Section 250(4)Section 37Section 46A

claim with supporting documents. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) challenging the ad-hoc disallowance. The assessee submitted additional evidence under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962, justifying its expenses with ledgers, invoices, and supporting documents. The CIT(A) forwarded the additional evidence ... unwarranted. The CIT(A) ruled that additional evidence was rightly admitted under Section 250(4) of the Act and not Rule 46A of I.T. Rules as the AO was given an opportunity to verify it. Since the AO failed to pinpoint specific unverifiable expenses, the ad-hoc disallowance

Mr. Balasaheb Bhagwantrao Patil, Osmanabad vs. ITO, Ward, Osmanabad, Latur

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

ITA 2819/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2819/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Mr. Balasaheb Bhagwantrao Vs Ito, Ward, Patil, Osmanabad, Latur 41 B Patil Nivas, A/P Hadongri Taluka Bhoom, Osmanabad-413501, Maharashtra Pan-Abjpp6358E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh V KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 46Section 69A

furnished necessary details and evidence to explain the alleged source of cash deposit but failed to file proper application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Act rules for admission of additional evidence. Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal without dealing with the merits of the case

Swarup Palit, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 44(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1465/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

failed to exercise his jurisdiction Page 2 of 3 I.T.A. No.: 1465/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Swarup Palit vested in him under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and completely ignored the additional evidence furnished by the assessee, therefore, in our view, the interests of justice will

Ashok Kumar Maiti, Panskura vs. Asst Commissioner Cir 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1325/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

this regard and the Ld. CIT(A) shall also grant an opportunity to the Ld. AO or call for the remand report as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Income Tax Officer, Nagercoil vs. Mahalakshmi Ramasamy, Nagercoil

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 2893/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2893/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ito Smt. Mahalakshmi Ramasamy बनाम/ Ward-1, 3/3B3, Vathiyarvillai, Vs. Nagercoil Nagercoil, Agasteeswaram-629 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Djtpm-5698-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No.18/Chny/2025 (In Ita No.2893/Chny/2024) (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Smt. Mahalakshmi Ramasamy Ito, बनाम/ 3/3B3, Vathiyarvillai, Ward-1, Vs. Nagercoil, Agasteeswaram-629 001. Nagercoil. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Djtpm-5698-P (Cross-Objector) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri M. Sundar (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri R. Bhoopathi (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri M. Sundar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

u/s.69A. (3) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence, without granting opportunity to the Assessing Officer, in violation of the provisions of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962. (4) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the entire addition of Rs.1,38,57,250/- made u/s.69A without ... settled legal position, is co-terminus with that of the power of Ld. AO. Therefore, the ground on violation of Rule 46A could not be accepted considering the facts of the case. The revenue’s appeal stand dismissed. The assessee’s cross-objection are merely supportive in nature

ITO, Mumbai vs. Vidhisha Gold Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 2663/MUM/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav BansalFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 68

granted relief after considering certain additional evidences furnished before him and those materials were not confronted with the AO. Hence, there is violation of Rule 46A of I T Rules. Accordingly, we are of the view that this issue requires fresh examination at the end of the AO. Accordingly

M/S. Vidhisha Gold Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO-11(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1790/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav BansalFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 68

Naresh Prasad Agarwal, Ranchi vs. ITO, Ward -2(1), Hazaribagh

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

ITA 445/RAN/2024[17-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurynaresh Prasad Agrawal, I.T.O., Flat No. 108, Koshambi Enclave, Phase- Ward 2(1), Vs. Ii, Navin Mitra Road, Lalpur, Hazaribagh. Ranchi-834001 Pan No. Abopa 9782 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

treated these evidences as additional evidences and has not considered at all while dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Still as per Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short, the Rules), the learned. CIT(A) has power to admit the additional evidences and call ... order of ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file with direction to admit additional evidences as per the terms of Rule 46A(3) of the rules and adjudicate the matter de novo as per law complying with the principles of natural justice. The assessee is also

Dy. C.I.T. Cir-.2, Nagpur vs. Shri Govinddas Goverdhan Daga, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for A

ITA 614/NAG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

without extending an opportunity to the AO to verify the fresh evidence as per the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition