← 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

Shri Go0Vinddas Govardhandas Daga, Nagpur vs. A.C.I.T. Circle 2, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for A

ITA 601/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

Anil Kumar Verma, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1235/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalanil Kumar Verma, B-23, Malviya Nagar, Alwar- 301001 Pan No.:Apvpa9342K ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward- 1(2), Alwar ...... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT, DR
Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 250

income from undisclosed sources. He has further erred in confirming the addition by not admitting the additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 46A of IT Rules, 1962. 2. The assessee craves to amend, alter and modify any of the grounds of appeal. 3. The appropriate cost be awarded

Mr. Goopalliappa Narasimhaiah, Hosur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hosur

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

ITA 2775/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2775/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Goopalliappa Narasimhaiah, The Income Tax Officer, No.3/150, Avalapalli (Village & Post), Vs. Ward 1, Hosur – 635 109. Hosur. Pan: Afjpn 2116A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Ravi Shankar, Advocate (Through Virtual Mode) & Shri D.C. Koushick, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A)/Nfac’S Order Dated 03.09.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-18. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised Is Whether The Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.88,50,000/- U/S.69A R.W.S 115Bbe Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69A

facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in law in not accepting the additional evidences submitted in accordance with Rule 46A of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had reasonable

Jayaram Balasubramanian, Dindigul vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(4), Chennai

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

ITA 2301/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2301/Chny/2024 िनधा(रण वष(/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Jayaram Balasubramanian, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 743/5, Duraikulam Shop, Income Tax, Madurai Road, Non-Corporate Circle 4(1), Pallapatty Village Begampur Post, Chennai. Dindigul – 624 001. [Pan: Aegpb 9719R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (+,थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G. Tarun, Advocate +,थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Keerthi Narayanan, Jcit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 68

passing a cryptic non-speaking order without considering the Jayaram Balasubramanian :: 2 :: application filed by the assessee for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income-Tax Rules, 1962 [herein after “Rules”]. 3. Brief facts are that the assessee is an individual carrying on business of leather products

ACIT-7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Lobo Staffing Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5756/MUM/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2021-22 Acit-7(1)(1), Lobo Staffing Solutions Pvt. Ltd., First Floor, 212, Prabhadevi Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Veer Savarkar Marg, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Prabhadevi, Mumbai Mumbai Pan : Aaacl8236C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh P. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr.DR

No.26AS. It is the case of the Revenue that the Ld CIT(A) has granted relief by 2 admitting additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A of I T Rules without confronting the same to the AO. 2. We heard the parties. Since the Ld CIT(A) has admitted ... considered additional evidences without confronting them with the AO, there is violation of Rule 46A of I T Rules. Hence, we are of the view that the impugned issue needs to be restored to the file of the AO. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed

ACIT-27(3), Mumbai vs. Surjit Singh Amrik Singh Saini, Mumbai

ITA 4029/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, CA &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “G” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR

Vishwanath Venkatesh Kamath, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Belagavi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

ITA 110/PAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 110/Pan/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vishwanath Venkatesh Kamat Pb Road, Kolhapur Cross, Nehru Nagar, Belgaum. Pan : Adcpk7548Q . . . . . . . Applicant V/S Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Belgaum. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 04/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/02/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Assessee Is In Appeal Against Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1045183404(1) Dt. 05/09/2022 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Best Judgement Assessment Order Dt. 25/12/2019 Passed U/S 144 Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Belgaum [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] For Assessment Year 2017-18 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 253(1)Section 44ASection 69A

NFAC in our considered view thus, not only suffered from reasonable opportunity (i.e. natural justice) but also suffered from the compliance of provisions of rule 46A (supra), hence deserves to be set-aside on this score alone. ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 8 Vishwanath Venkatesh Kamat

Prabhat Kumar, Patna vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Patna

ITA 283/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH” PATNA (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY

Rejeshri Omprakash Malviya, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(1) (Previously Ward-4(1)(3)), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1053/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 54BSection 54G

circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the additional evidence application duly filed by assessee under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules.” 3. The assessee filed return of income on 25.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs.2,89,963/- for Assessment Year ... available on record. It is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) has not taken cognisance of the application filed by the assessee under Rule 46A dated 24.01.2024 for admission of additional evidences which should have been taken into account by the CIT(A) while deciding the appeal. Therefore

Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 762/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153A

Madhucon Projects Ltd Officer which is in violation of the provisions of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1963. He has referred to the remand report and submitted that the details were not filed before the Assessing Officer either during the assessement proceedings or during the remand proceedings

Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 761/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153A

Madhucon Projects Ltd Officer which is in violation of the provisions of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1963. He has referred to the remand report and submitted that the details were not filed before the Assessing Officer either during the assessement proceedings or during the remand proceedings

ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 723/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153A

Madhucon Projects Ltd Officer which is in violation of the provisions of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1963. He has referred to the remand report and submitted that the details were not filed before the Assessing Officer either during the assessement proceedings or during the remand proceedings

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 13/HYD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153A

Madhucon Projects Ltd Officer which is in violation of the provisions of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1963. He has referred to the remand report and submitted that the details were not filed before the Assessing Officer either during the assessement proceedings or during the remand proceedings

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 12/HYD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153A

Madhucon Projects Ltd Officer which is in violation of the provisions of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1963. He has referred to the remand report and submitted that the details were not filed before the Assessing Officer either during the assessement proceedings or during the remand proceedings

Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Hyd, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1328/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153A

Madhucon Projects Ltd Officer which is in violation of the provisions of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1963. He has referred to the remand report and submitted that the details were not filed before the Assessing Officer either during the assessement proceedings or during the remand proceedings

Mahendra Kumar Saraogi, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 457/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: the First Appellate Authority. The Ld. CIT(A) has recorded the following findings against the assessee.

Section 143(3)Section 250

would be desirable for the assessee to file documents, not filed before the Ld. AO, through a 4 Mahendra Kumar Saraogi proper application under Rule 46A so that the Ld. CIT(A) may call for a remand report on the same. 4. In the result, the appeal filed

S.R.P. Infocom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 4(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1452/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Feb 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

provisions of the Act. The new evidence filed before us deserves to be filed before the Ld. CIT(A) with a proper application under Rule 46A so that remand report can be called from the Ld. AO. Accordingly, it is reiterated that while adjudicating this matter

Servier India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, OSD, TDS Circle 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 5775/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri M. P Lihia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Meena, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 37Section 40

source while crediting the provision against specific heads of expenses. From the perusal of records we notice that the assessee furnished additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules) before the CIT(A) on 09.09.2024 (page 191 to 323 of PB) furnishing details of invoices

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur vs. Virendra Kumar Agrawal, Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 485/RPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 485/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 57Section 68Section 69C

tune of Rs.59,42,862/- on account of deduction claimed u/s.57 of the act by admitting additional evidences in contravention of Income Tax Rules 46A(1) and 46A(2) and thereby ignoring the facts brought on the record by the AO?" 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstance ... tune of Rs.37,57,883/- u/s 69C of the act by admitting additional evidences in contravention of Income Tax Rules 46A(1) and 46A(2) and thereby ignoring the facts brought on the record by the AO?" 3. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case

Shoukat Mohd. Khan, Bhopal vs. ITO 4(2), Bhopal

ITA 250/IND/2024[AY2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Indore03 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year: 2012-13 Shoukat Mohd. Khan, Ito 4(2), H.No.1, Street No.1, Bhopal Chhawani, बनाम/ Near Bharat Talkies, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Avnpk4460E Assessee By Shri Manish Vaidya & Ms. Preeti Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2025

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 144Section 54Section 69

fiza, Bhopal. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A). The assessee filed additional evidences before CIT(A) in terms of Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962 which were admitted by CIT(A). The CIT(A) received remand-report from AO and also rejoinder to same