“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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Smt Rajpriyam, Rajapalayam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2047/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2047/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Smt. Rajpriyam The Dcit, Non-Corporate Circle-2, 506-C, Thenkasi Road, Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. [Pan: Arzpr-4762-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.R.Clement Ramesh Kumar,CITFor Respondent: Mr. R.Venkata Raman, CA

Section 250Section 68

dismissed. 4. The second ground of the Revenue is against action of the Ld.CIT(A) admitting additional evidence in violation of provisions of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter in short “Rules”). On this issue, the Ld.AR submitted that there has been no violation of Rule 46A, since ... Ld.AR, pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the first appellate authority, the assessee had filed relevant documents and therefore, there is no violation of Rule 46A, and in addition, submitted that sub-rule (4) of Rule 46A permits additional evidence to be adduced, if directed by the first appellate

Chheda Lal Shukla, Noida vs. ITO Ward - 1(2), Noida

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

ITA 1573/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 153a

addition. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee appealed before the CIT (A) and filed an application for additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules submitting necessary evidences. However, the ld. CIT (A) sustained the order of the Assessing Officer. 8. We have gone

Tata Sponge Iron Ltd Gratuity Fund, Bilaipada Joda Odisha vs. ACIT Circle 1(1) Bhubaneshwar, Bhubaneshwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and stay petition stands dismissed

ITA 520/CTK/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalstay Petition No.12/Ctk/2024 Assessment Year : 2022-23 Tata Tata Sponge Sponge Iron Iron Ltd., Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), 1(1), Bilelpada, Joda, Keonjhar Bilelpada, Joda, Keonjhar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. No.Aaatt 5339 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Neha Jhunjhunwala, Ca : Ms Neha Jhunjhunwala, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09/01/20 2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/01/20 025 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 11.11.2024 In Appeal No. 11.11.2024 In Appeal No. Nfac/2021- 22/10364461 For The Ass For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Ms Neha Jhunjhunwala, Ca Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Saroj Ms Neha Jhunjhunwala, Ca Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Saroj Ms Neha Jhunjhunwala, Ca Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Kumar Dubey, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Ms Neha Jhunjhunwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT

admitted the same. Consequently, it would not be appropriate for the Tribunal to admit such evidences insofar as an application under Rule 46A of IT Rules has not been filed either before the ld CIT(A) nor before the Tribunal. However, it is noticed that the assessee has got evidences

DCIT Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs. Tatva Buildcon, Bhairavnath Road, Maninagar

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

ITA 1726/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1726/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Dcit-2(1)(1) Tatva Buildcon बनाम/ Ahmedabad 1, Vraj Vihar Apartment, V/S. 2, Gopal Baug Society Bhairavnath Road Maninagar Ahmedabad – 380 008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaift 8076 F अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chirag R. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Chirag R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271ASection 68

submitting additional evidence during the appellate proceedings, including confirmations, ITRs, and bank statements of the lenders. The CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence under Rule 46A due to the assessee's inability to furnish the documents earlier, citing limited time during the assessment stage. The CIT(A) called ... subject matter of the original assessment. 7.2. In the present case, the CIT(A) judiciously exercised his authority by admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, after being satisfied that the assessee faced genuine difficulties in producing all necessary documents during the assessment proceedings

Shri Devendra Thakershibhai Thakkar, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 587/AHD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.587/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2913-14 Devendra Thakershibhai The Ito बनाम/ Thakkar Ward-3(2)(1) V/S. Prop. Of Prism Agri Ahmedabad – 380 015 Tradelink Ravjipura Nava Bazar, Bavla Tal: Dascroi Ahmedabad – 380 057 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aospt 8109 B अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 145(2)

Rs.92,18,346/-. 3. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) along with an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, submitting Sales and purchase registers, original bills and invoices, Bank statements, Stock details and supporting documents for expenses

DCIT, Central Circle- 1(3), Pune, Income Tax vs. Garware Technical Fibres Limited, Maharashtra

ITA 1831/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: CA Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR And

Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE "A" BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA

Garware Technical Fibres Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), Pune

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1703/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: CA Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR And Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

03/10/2023, for AY 2018-19 as well as AY 2019-20. The assessee submitted an application 38 ITA.Nos.1696 to 1703/PUN./2024 under Rule 46A of I.T. Rules requesting to admit the said certificate as 'additional evidence' as the same could not be filed before the AO because the said

Garware Technical Fibres Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), Pune

ITA 1702/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: CA Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR And

Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE "A" BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA

Garware Technical Fibres Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), Pune

ITA 1701/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE "A" BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA

Garware Technical Fibres Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), Pune

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1700/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: CA Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR And Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

Garware Technical Fibres Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), Pune

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1699/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: CA Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR And Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

Garware Technical Fibres Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), Pune

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1698/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: CA Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR And Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

Garware Technical Fibres Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), Pune

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1697/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: CA Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR And Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

Garware Technical Fibres Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), Pune

ITA 1696/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: CA Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR And

Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE "A" BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA

Income Tax Officer, Ward 11(1), Hyderabad vs. Abhi Constructions, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1021/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1021/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Income Tax Officer Vs. Abhi Constructions Ward 11(1) Bachupally, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Abdfa8081H (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 09/01/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

Section 142(1)Section 68

evidences filed by the assessee without confronting the same to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, there is a violation of principles of natural justice under Rule 46A of the I.T Rules, 1962. Thus, the learned DR has pleaded that the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) should be set aside ... learned CIT (A) without confronting the same to the Assessing Officer is a clear violation of principles of natural justice as well as Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order of the learned

ACIT 32 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Fitrite Packers, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4035/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 37

Ld.CIT(A) was justified in admitting the additional evidence submitted by the assessee during the appellate proceedings in contravention of the provisions of Rule 46A(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified ... deciding the appeal of the assessee based on the additional evidence proceedings, without giving an opportunity to the AO as per the provisions of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962? 3. In the course of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee was partnership firm

Avinash Tantia HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 17 (1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for

ITA 1405/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Haresh P. Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gotimukul Santosh Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250

vide submissions dated 03.05.2023 not only submitted various documents which were relevant for adjudication of the issues involved, however also filed one application under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short “the Rules”) for production of additional evidence. Though the Ld. Commissioner in para

Shaunak Shailesh Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 89/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69A

learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in not entertaining the additional evidences placed before him under Rule 46A(1). 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of Id. AO of reopening ... assessee contacted another Advocate, who filed the appeal of the assessee before Ld. CIT(Appeals). Further, the assessee also filed application under Rule 46A seeking to admit certain additional evidence in support of his case and to prove the source of deposits in his bank account. However, Ld. CIT(Appeals

Krishan Pratap Singh, Tikamgarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Tikamgarh

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

ITA 139/JAB/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri. Abhijeet Shrivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Bharat Sheogankar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

before the ld. AO, we also observed that he has submitted the cash book with the related bills and vouchers as additional evidence under Rule 46A before the ld. CIT(A), with a request that the same may kindly be accepted and considered while deciding the matter. However

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Jabalpur vs. Shri Indrabhan Singh Rathore, Narsinghpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 234/JAB/2018[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur08 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri. Aok Bhura, DRFor Respondent: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

from the various sub/petty contractors in support of the fact of having made deposits before the learned CIT(A) and moved an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules submitting that the affidavits could not be filed at the time of assessment proceedings, as the assessment was taken ... assessee could not contact the aforesaid creditors. Therefore, it was prayed that the additional evidence may be admitted under Rule 46A. The assessee also submitted that all the so called loans taken from the above ten sundry creditors had been duly secured against assets as reflected in Schedule