“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

Shri Shyam Oil Extractions Pvt. Ltd., Janjgir-Champa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Janjgir-Champa, Janjgir-Champa

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 52/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.52, 53, 54, 55 & 339/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shri Shyam Oil Extractions Pvt. Ltd. Village: Banari, Janjgir, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)-495 668 Pan: Aaocs2467G ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer/Acit-2(1), Ward-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)/Bilaspur ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, CIT-DR &

Section 250

justice, the matter needs to be revisited by the first appellate authority considering all these additional evidences filed on record in compliance to Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, 1962. 14. Having heard the submissions of the parties herein, considering the documents on record and as per directives ... conclusion so that there is clear reasoning in the order itself which reveals that the said authority has arrived at a such conclusion. Secondly, Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, 1962 shall be complied with so that ground report can be obtained from the A.O regarding all those additional

Shri Shyam Oil Extractions Pvt. Ltd., Janjgir, Champa, Janjgir-Champa vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bilaspur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 339/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, CIT-DR &

Section 250

Thar Stone Expo India Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 9(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2589/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2013-14 Thar Stone Expo India Pvt. Ltd.…..………………….……….……….……Appellant P-4A, Kalakar Street, Kol-7. [Pan: Aaect1290L] Vs. Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata…….……...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S K Pransukha, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 14, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 05, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.09.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013–14. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2013-14 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,18,320/-. The Assessment Of The Assessee Was Completed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Determining Total Income Of Rs.91,18,320/- By Making An Addition Of Rs.90,00,000/- U/S 68 Of The Act.

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250Section 68

submission Thar Stone Expo India Pvt. Ltd made by the assessee in the course of appellate proceedings as there was no application under Rule 46A. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before us. The ld. AR challenged the very impugned order by submitting legal ground that

Chauli Singhapur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Pashchim Medinipur vs. ACIT, Circle 38, Midnapore

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

ITA 1204/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Chauli Sighapur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd.……….……….……Appellant Singapur, Chauli, Ghatal, Paschim Medinipur 721212.. [Pan: Aacac0960C] Vs. Acit, Circle-38, Midnapore…………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 21, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 05, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.04.2025 Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2010–11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Society, Carrying On Business Of Sales Of Fertilisers, Pesticides, Seeds, Providing Loans To Members & Registered Under West Bengal Co-Operative Society Act, 2006. The Assessee Filed Its Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2017-18 By Disclosing A Total Income At Rs Nil. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) By Denying Deduction Of Rs.29,43,810/- U/S 80P(2) Of The Act & Also Added Back Cash Deposited Rs.24,86,110/- Out Of Total Cash Deposited Rs.2,10,09,000/- During The Period Of Demonetization From 09-11-2016 To 30-12-2016 As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69ASection 80P(2)

Officer, therefore, the appeal is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to admit the aforesaid additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Rules and pass a fresh order in accordance with law keeping in mind all the documentary evidences filed by the assessee

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Wizcraft Entertainment Agency Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal and cross objection are dismissed

ITA 5310/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiaito, Ward-1(3)(4) Wizcraft Entertainment Agency 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Private Limited M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 1103, Morya Blue Moom Premises, Vs. Link Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053 Pan/Gir No. Aaacw 1107 H (Revenue) : (Assessee) & Co No. 36/Mum/2026 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5310/Mum/2025) (Assessment Year: 2022-23) Wizcraft Entertainment Agency Ito, Ward-1(3)(4) Private Limited 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 1103, Morya Blue Moom Premises, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Link Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053 Pan/Gir No. Aaacw 1107 H (Assessee) : (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Srivastava, Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: Captioned Appeal By The Department & Cross Objection By The Assessee, Arise Out Of Order Dated 30.06.2025 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi, Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2022-23. 2

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Srivastava, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta – CIT DR

submitted, ld. First appellate authority relying upon additional evidences, which were not before the A.O., had deleted the disallowance, which is in violation of Rule 46A. 8. Per contra, ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that though the assessee had furnished supporting evidences to justify the claim of expenses

Income Tax Officer, Ward-30(5), Delhi vs. Sanjeev Aggarwal, Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5555/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraincome Tax Officer, Vs. Sanjeev Aggarwal, Ward-30(5), E2-1410, Civic Center, Delhi New Delhi (Assessee) (Respondent) Pan: Aaepa2964M Assessee By : None Revenue By: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 05/02/2026

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

calling for a remand report. The AO instead of analysing and investigating the evidences, contested the evidence on the basis of Rule 46A. The ld CIT(A) thereafter, considering the facts of the case, found the disallowance of the cost of improvements made by the Assessing Officer as unjustified

M/S Deoki Developers Pvt. Ltd (Private Limited Co.), Patna vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 509/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the assessee filed detailed written submission and documentary evidences after going through the documents the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4.

Section 147Section 148Section 250

authorities below. During the course of hearing before us as the Ld. Counsel submitted that during the appellate proceeding the additional documents as per Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules was filed which were not entertained by the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. DR could not controvert

Income Tax Officer, Siwan vs. Ghanshyam Dwivedi, Hathuwa Gopalganj

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

ITA 503/PAT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

Ghanshyam Dwivedi accepting additional evidence submitted by the Assessee without allowing the Assessing officer an opportunity to examine and submit his report/argument, as per Rule 46A of the Income tax Rule, 1962. ii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the action ... allowing the Assessing officer any opportunity of being heard was in contravention of Rule 46A of the Income tax Rule, 1962 iii. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee did not file

ACIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad vs. New Club, Hyderabad

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

ITA 958/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194ASection 69A

Club appellate proceedings without giving any finding in the appellate order for admitting the same which is in contravention to Rule 46A. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in considering the additional evidence submitted by the assessee during the appellate proceedings, which were not produced before the Assessing ... Officer during the assessment proceedings, without giving opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine the evidence, which is in violation of the Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on merits in concluding that the cash deposits in bank would have arisen on account

ACIT, Circle-1 Kalyan, Kalyan vs. F T Textiles Private Limited, Bhiwandi

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

ITA 6238/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)

delay should not have been condoned. Consequently, the department was not given an opportunity to present their case before the Ld.CIT(A) and hence Rule 46A comes into play. As no opportunity was given by the Ld.CIT(A), the department is aggrieved and filed this appeal and submitted that Rule ... delay and also gave relief to the appellant on merits also without giving an opportunity to the department in terms of provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. As mentioned above, the Department is aggrieved and filed this appeal. 5. The Ld.DR before the ITAT has relied

Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Delhi vs. Gold Souk Finance Private Limited, Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5827/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalito, Ward-10(1) Vs. Gold Souk Finance Private Room No. G-11A, Ground Limited, Plot No. 1, Floor, C.R. Building, Local Shopping Centre Ip Estate Sharda Niketan, Pitampura New Delhi – 110002 Delhi – 110034 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaecg4594J Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeshwar Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(iia)

been granted without verifying fair market value of shares submitted by assessee during appellate proceedings and ld. DR has relied the provisions of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules 1962 to submit that additional evidences were admitted without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine the fair market value ... Manish Buildwell (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT, 245 ITR 397 (2011), 5. However, before us Ld. AR has pointed out that the application under Rule 46A dated 09.09.2019 along with valuation report of equity shares of all relevant parties, under Rule 11UA of the Act were filed copy of which

Neeraj Kumar, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(3), Agra

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

ITA 538/AGR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshneeraj Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 18/24, Ghadi Hussaini Ward-2(1)(3), Prakash Nagar, Agra Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ajwpn8393C Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Garg, Adv Shri Pradumn Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 44ASection 69A

maintained; the addition made is arbitrary and contrary to law. 8. Because the learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting additional evidence under Rule 46A despite the fact that the assessment was completed ex- parte and the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause due to notices being served on a wrong

Gsj Telecom Private Limited, Shillong vs. Assitant Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong

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

ITA 239/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati03 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)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 and an opportunity of being heard may be provided to the Ld. AO, if required

Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmebabad vs. Techno Industries, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 660/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyaltechno Industries, Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Plot No. 613, Phase Iv, Income-Tax, Gidc, Vatva, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad-382 245 Ahmedabad [Pan : Aacft 1503 D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Respondent By: Shri Abhijit, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 22.01.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)” For Short), Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short), Relating To The Assessment Year 2017- 18. 2. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “(1) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs 1,03,00,000/- Made By Ao On Account Of Unsecured Loan Received From Various Lenders U/S. 68 Of It Act, Despite The Fact That The Assessee Had Not Corroborative Evidences Identity Genuineness/Creditworthiness Of The Lenders During Assessment Establish The Proceedings. (2) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Admitting The Additional Evidences During Appellate Proceedings, Without Giving The Opportunity To The Ao As Required By Rule 46A.. (3) The Ld. Cita) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,66,037/- Made By Ao On Account Of Disallowance Of Interest On Unsecured Loans Paid To Lenders, Despite The Fact That The Assessee Had Not Dcit Vs. Techno Industries Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 2–

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

erred in law and on facts in admitting the additional evidences during appellate proceedings, without giving the opportunity to the AO as required by Rule 46A.. (3) The Ld. CITA) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,66,037/- made ... deleted the above additions. Against the said relief, the Revenue is in appeal before us. Ground No. 1 & 2 – Addition u/s 68 and Rule 46A 5. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.1,03,00,000/- u/s 68 in respect of unsecured loans received from five parties, holding that

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1), Pune vs. Sachin Govind Apte, Pune

Accordingly, Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1720/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1720/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, V Sachin Govind Apte, Ward-3(1), Pune. S. 759-63, Prabhat Road, Erandwana, Pune – 411004. Pan: Aavpa9458P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Ms.Vaishnavi Badwe Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde - Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 Dated 15.05.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 30.03.2016. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Hon'Ble Cit (A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.78,72,000/- Made Under Head Stcg & Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 54F Of The It. Act, 1961? 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Hon‟Ble Cti (A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,20,00,000/- Made On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S Section 2(22)(E) Of The I.T. Act, 1961?

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 54F

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon‟ble CIT(A) erred in not complying with the provisions of Rule 46A(3) of IT Rules while admitting fresh evidence establishing the alleged dissolution of firm on 31.03.2007. 4. Whether on the facts ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon‟ble CIT (A) erred in not complying with the provisions of Rule 46A(3) of IT Rules while admitting fresh evidence relied upon while coming to a conclusion that the advances of Rs.1,20,00,000/- were given in the course

Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore vs. Acl Industries Limited, Coimbatore

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

ITA 2592/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: None

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

Audit Report for the relevant assessment year. :- 6 -: 5. The Ld.DR submitted that the FAA in utter disregard to the mandate prescribed in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 decided the issue in favour of assessee. Therefore, it was submitted that in the interest of justice and equity ... other than that which is furnished to the AO, except in four circumstances enumerated in clause (a) to (d) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 46A however provides that no evidence shall be admitted under Sub-Rule

ITO, Thane vs. Murlidhar M Pichad HUF, Thane

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

ITA 4857/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2022-23 Income Tax Officer, Murlidhar M Pichad Huf, 6Th Floor, Flat No. 508, Bldg. 02, Ashar It Park, Vs. Gawand Baug Ashoka, Thane, Pokharan Road No. 2, Maharashtra-400604. Thane. Maharashtra-400601 Pan : Aaihm4676E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Gaurang Shah (Virtually Present) For Revenue : Shri Umashankar Prasad, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang ShahFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

appellate proceedings, the AO is also required to be provided an opportunity and his report should be called for as specifically provided in Rule 46A(3). Basis the assessee‟s application and after taking into consideration the remand report submitted by the AO, the Ld.CIT(A) can pass appropriate order ... Rule 46A(2) either accepting or rejecting the additional evidences and thereafter, the matter can be proceeded within examining the merits of the case. 10. In the instant case, on perusal of the impugned order, it is not clear whether the assessee has moved any application under Rule 46A

Charinangal Service Cooperative Society, Jajpur vs. ITO, Jajpur Ward, Jajpur

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

ITA 692/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.692/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-2020) Charinangal Service Vs Ito Ward-Jajpur, Jajpur Cooperaztive Society Charinangal, Po: Charinangal, Jajpur, Odisha-754296 Pan No. : Aabac 6871 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ananta Narayan Singhbabu & Dr. Sanjay Behura, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.09.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2019-2020 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That The Assessee Admittedly Not Produced The Evidence Before The Ao. The Assessee Had Produced The Evidences Before The Ld.Cit(A) . It Was Submission That The Ld.Cit(A) Did Not Admit The Additional Evidences On Account Of Violation Of Provision Of Rule 46A Of The It Rule. It Was The Prayer That The Issues May Be Restored To The File Of The Assessing Officer, So That The Assessee Would Be Able To Produce All The Evidences Before The Ao. 3. In Reply, The Ld.Cit Dr Vehemently Supported The Orders Of The Ao & Cit(A). It Was Submission That The Assessee Was Totally Non-

For Appellant: Shri Ananta Narayan Singhbabu & DrFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR

before the Ld.CIT(A) . It was submission that the Ld.CIT(A) did not admit the additional evidences on account of violation of provision of Rule 46A of the IT Rule. It was the prayer that the issues may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, so that

Dhananjay Vasantrao Deshmukh (HUF), Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(5), Aurangabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2344/PUN/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Feb 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh N Thete (virtual)For Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

after considering the submissions of the assessee as well as details and other evidences, if any, filed by the assessee under Rule 46A of IT Rules, 1964 and call for remand report from Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). Needless to mention that assessee is to update latest email id 5 ITA.Nos

Income Tax Officer- Ward-1/Jao, Nagercoil vs. Arulanandham Ber Syril Antow, Nagercoil

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2079/CHNY/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Bipin C.N., C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. M.Ramesh Kumar, F.C.A

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 2Section 2(14)Section 40

2079/Chny/2025 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without remanding the same to the Assessing Officer, in violation of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have restored the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. The brief facts emanating ... action of the ld.CIT(A) submitted that the deletion of addition of long term capital gain is erroneous and also is in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. Further, the ld.DR relied on the grounds of appeal and prayed for reversing the impugned order and instead confirming