← 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

Kamat Hotels (India) Limited, Vile Parle Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai Maharashtra

ITA 894/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

powers vested in the CIT(A) in terms of Section 250(4)/251 of the Act and in line with the provisions contained in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 [the ‘IT Rules’]. 10.3. It is not the case of the Revenue that the CIT(A) had relied

Income Tax Officer Ward- 2(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Kamat Hotels India Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1483/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

powers vested in the CIT(A) in terms of Section 250(4)/251 of the Act and in line with the provisions contained in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 [the ‘IT Rules’]. 10.3. It is not the case of the Revenue that the CIT(A) had relied

Jayshriben Vinodbhai Prajapati L/H of Vinodbhai Ganeshbhai Prajapati, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Wrad-3(2)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 149/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 68

confirmed the addition of cash deposits of Rs.22,00,000/- since the assessee has not filed any additional evidence under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. Further the Authorized Representative vide his letter dated 22-09-2017 has not pressed ground no. 2 namely addition on account of STCG thereby

Sachin Nagraj Chhajed, Pune vs. ITO, Pune

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

ITA 1765/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sachin P. KumarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194CSection 250

order was passed u/s 144 and grossly erred in not calling for the remand report from the AO by following the Ruled prescribed under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, despite the fact that specific ground of appeal was raised in this regard. 8. That, on the facts

Sachin Nagraj Chhajed, Pune vs. ITO, Pune

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

ITA 1764/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sachin P. KumarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194CSection 250

order was passed u/s 144 and grossly erred in not calling for the remand report from the AO by following the Ruled prescribed under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, despite the fact that specific ground of appeal was raised in this regard. 8. That, on the facts

Rami Reddy Infra Projects Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 307/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.307/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Rami Reddy Infra Projects Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-2(1), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aahcr4242F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""ाथ" की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

investment is unsustainable both in law and on facts. 5. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC ought to have considered the submissions / evidences made vide Rule 46A while filing Form-35. 6. Appellant craves leave to add amen and or alter the stands as the occasion may warrant

Behara Educational Trust, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption Ward), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 164/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.164/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Behra Educational Trust, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H.No. 14-7, Rrv Puram, Exemption Ward, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam-530027, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aactb5482D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 30/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

before adjudicating the appeal on the plea that the appellant had not made application requesting for admission of additional evidence as required under Rule 46A(1) of the Act. 3. That having regard to the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts ... evidence / additional confirmation letters from the 20 donors produced by the assessee by simply holding that no request for admission of additional evidence under Rule-46A was filed by the assessee neither in Form-35 nor by adducing separate application under Rule-46A of the IT Rules, 1962. In this

Aayush NRI Lepl Health Care Pvt.Ltd, Vijayawada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 136/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 135 & 136/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14)) Aayush Nri Lepl Healthcare Private Limited V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(3) No. 48-13-3 & 3A Aayush Vijayawada Ring Road, Sri Ramachandra Nagar Vijayawada – 520008 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aadcn4865A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 142ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

I.T.A. Nos. 135 & 136/VIZ/2023 Aayush NRI LEPL Healthcare Private Limited 8. The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the petition filed by the assessee company under rule 46A of IT Rules, which contained material evidence pertaining to the cost of construction, without providing any reason for such disregard. 9. The appellant prays

Aayush NRI Lepl Health Care Pvt.Ltd, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 135/VIZ/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 135 & 136/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14)) Aayush Nri Lepl Healthcare Private Limited V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(3) No. 48-13-3 & 3A Aayush Vijayawada Ring Road, Sri Ramachandra Nagar Vijayawada – 520008 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aadcn4865A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 142ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

I.T.A. Nos. 135 & 136/VIZ/2023 Aayush NRI LEPL Healthcare Private Limited 8. The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the petition filed by the assessee company under rule 46A of IT Rules, which contained material evidence pertaining to the cost of construction, without providing any reason for such disregard. 9. The appellant prays

Income Tax Officer -19(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kamlesh Gupta and Sons HUF, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4187/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Mantri, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Santosh Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

Commissioner and during the appellate proceedings submitted M/s. Kamlesh Gupta and Sons HUF several documents along with application for submission of additional evidence under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short ‘the Rules) on 22.12.2023. 9. The Ld. Commissioner though examined the admissibility of the evidence ... 46A of the Rules, however, upheld the addition of Rs.79,14,292/- by observing as holding mainly as under: “That the condition prescribed in rule 46A of the Rules is not satisfied and therefore the application for admission of additional evidence dated 22.12.2023 is rejected. The Ld. Commissioner on merits

Kamlesh Gupta and Sons HUF, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4079/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Mantri, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Santosh Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

Commissioner and during the appellate proceedings submitted M/s. Kamlesh Gupta and Sons HUF several documents along with application for submission of additional evidence under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short ‘the Rules) on 22.12.2023. 9. The Ld. Commissioner though examined the admissibility of the evidence ... 46A of the Rules, however, upheld the addition of Rs.79,14,292/- by observing as holding mainly as under: “That the condition prescribed in rule 46A of the Rules is not satisfied and therefore the application for admission of additional evidence dated 22.12.2023 is rejected. The Ld. Commissioner on merits

Manojkumar Madangopal Maheshwari, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(2), Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed as being infructuous

ITA 1105/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam ThackerFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 112(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 48Section 6Section 6(1)(c)

raised additional ground (placed at page 760 to 764 of the paper book) and also filed an application seeking admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, vide a letter dated 10/07/2018, (placed at page 765 to 781 of the paper book) in relation

Amratlal and Dhirajlal and Co, Mumbai vs. DCIT 23(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2875/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 694

raised before us, Ld. CIT(A) noted that assessee had furnished the evidence as additional evidence without complying with the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules) for their admission and consideration. He thus, did not consider the evidences so furnished by the assessee

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7, Pune vs. Mubea Automotive Components India Private Limited, Pune

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

ITA 694/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(2)

erred in deleting the addition amounting to Rs.5,95,66,950/- without giving adequate opportunity to the AO by remanding the matter under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules and without taking into consideration the fact that no submission to prove the basis of aforesaid claims could be made

Imperial Housing, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1792/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(1)Section 35D

admitting additional evidences in the form of "Copy of Index Il for purchase of plot and "commencement certificate in violation of the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules 1962. 4 The appellant craves leave to add or to amend or alter any or all of the grounds

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Pune vs. Imperial Housing, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1120/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(1)Section 35D

admitting additional evidences in the form of "Copy of Index Il for purchase of plot and "commencement certificate in violation of the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules 1962. 4 The appellant craves leave to add or to amend or alter any or all of the grounds

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-1(2, Nagpur vs. M/S. Vibrant Global Capital Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 229/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

admission of additional evidence submitted by the assessee. The learned CIT(A), at Para–3.3, has admitted the additional evidence under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962, as prayed by the assessee before him and the same was forwarded to the Assessing Officer with direction to examine and send

ACIT (Central)-2, Bhopal vs. Hariom Properties, Bhopal

ITA 295/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 43CSection 68

regarding existence of liability of Rs. 49,02,000/-? b) Whereby whether Ld CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A and deleting the addition of Rs. 49,02,000/- without allowing opportunity to the Assessing Officer under Rule 46(3) and without recording reasons under

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Folium Trading Private Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 1271/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1271/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 The Assistant Commissioner Folium Trading Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, Vs. Old No.42, 43, 44, Corporate Circle 1(1), New Door No.73, Chennai. Shop No.G8, Arcot Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. Pan: Aaccf 4425B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1060106027 (1) Dated 25.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2017-18 U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 19.12.2019. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noticed That This Appeal Is Barred By Limitation By 28 Days & Revenue Has Filed Affidavit. The Facts Are That The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 25.01.2024 Was Received In The Office Of Pcit On 02.02.2024 & The Due Date Of Filing Of Appeal Before

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

such parties on the other. 4. The Ld. CIT (4) has erred in not providing opportunity to the Assessing Officer under Rule 46A to examine fresh evidence,/ additional details. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue on a prejudiced manner by merely stating that

DCIT, Central Circle -17, New Delhi vs. Diamond Tradex Company Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the order of the Ld

ITA 2630/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2630/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 132

account of cash deposited during demonetization. The assessee company during appellate proceedings filed additional evidences before the Ld.CIT(Appeals) under Rule 46A and the Ld.CIT(A) duly accepted and considered the additional evidences filed before him. The Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition on the ground that the AO has accepted