“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

Janaki Ram Babji Rao Annam, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 129/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 129/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Janaki Ram Babji Rao Annam, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada. Ward-3(1), Pan: Aecpa4464Q Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 24/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 46ASection 69A

Ward-3(1), Vijayawada U/s. 69A of the Act by not admitting the additional evidence produced by the appellant as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. Since appellant’s case is covered under clause (b) and (c) of Rule 46A(1) due to ill health of the appellant ... Form No.35, at Para-12, wherein it has been asked that whether the assessee is filing any additional documentary evidence in terms of Rule-46A, the assessee mentioned “NO”. Further, the Ld. DR argued that the assessee did not make any request for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A

The ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Thodupuzha vs. Varappillykudi Abdulrahiman Shoukathali, Kothamangalam

ITA 315/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhvarappillykudi Abdulrahiman Income Tax Officer Shoukathali Ward -1 & Tps 1, Marhaba Agencies Mahima Tpowers Vs. Cheruvattoor, Kothamangalam Temple Bypass Road Ernakulam 686691 Thodupuzha 685584 [Pan: Czsps7513K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer Varappillykudi Abdulrahiman Ward -1 & Tps Shoukathali Mahima Tpowers 1, Marhaba Agencies Vs. Temple Bypass Road Cheruvattoor, Kothamangalam Thodupuzha 685584 Ernakulam 686691 [Pan: Czsps7513K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markos, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR

Section 250Section 69A

lower appellate discussion. The Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 315/Coch/2023 also appears to have raised the issue of violation of rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 that the learned CIT(A) had admitted the assessee’s additional evidence without calling for a detailed remand report from the Assessing Officer

Varappillykudi Abdulrahiman Shoukathali, Kothamangalam vs. The ITO Ward 1, Thodupuzha

ITA 294/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markos, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR

Section 250Section 69A

Raj Group, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 3241/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: ShriShriram BajajFor Respondent: Shri Sunny Kachhwaha, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43C

page 8 which is reproduced as below:- “VI. Issue No 2-Before I go into the main issue, the admissibility of Additional Evidence under Rule 46A is discussed. The taxpayer has in an Application dt 28/4/2024 has requested for admitting Additional Evidence under Rule 46A. The taxpayer in the application ... considered view, we find that in the impugned appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) had not considered the additional evidence filed by the assessee under rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The ld.CIT(A) does not mention any reasons for not considering the said additional evidence while passing the impugned

M/S. Maha Gujarat Silk Selection, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 50/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.50/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S.Maha Gujarat Silk Section The Ito बनाम/ 402, Akshat Apartment Ward-5(2)(5) V/S. Opp. Suvidha Shopping Centre Ahmedabad Paldi Ahmedabad – 380 007 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aagfm 5457 M अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ritesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Ritesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

disposed of the appeal ex- parte, upholding the addition made by the AO, without considering the additional evidence submitted by the assessee under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. M/s.Maha Gujarat Silk Selection vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2014-15 4. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal ... facts in upholding the additions to the extent of Rs.35,50,000/- when being upon the additional documentary evidences under Rule 46A, that is Computation of Income and the property purchase and sale agreement for calculation of Indexation purpose was already uploaded along with the Form 35 at the time

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune vs. Indus Biotech Private Limited, Pune

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 863/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godara"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs. Indus Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1(1), 1, Rahul Residency, Pune Plot Nos.6 & 7, Off Salunke Vihar Road, Kondhwa, Kondhwa Bk B.O., Pune – 411048 Maharashtra Pan: Aaaci5708E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 41(1)

deleting section 41(1) addition which was infact made u/s.68 of the Act as unexplained cash credits but also he failed to comply with Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 in admitting the additional evidence submitted by the taxpayer, thereby not seeking the Assessing Officer’s remand report

Townhomes Villas and Apartments Private Limited, Ernakulam vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 164/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 69B

documents during the appellate proceedings which were not admitted by the learned CIT(A) as there was no application filed by the assessee under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee before us submitted that

Townhomes Villas and Appartments Private Limited, Ernakulam vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 163/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 69B

Shridatt Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Mumbai, Mumbai - Prabhadevi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4785/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year: 2017-18 Shridatt Sahakari Patsanstha Income Tax Officer, Maryadit Ward-22(3)(4), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69ASection 80P

erred in not admitting the additional evidence on the ground that the Appellant has not furnished any application under rule 46A with the submission. 3.2 The Hon'ble CIT[Appeal] failed to consider that the appeal had vide submission dated 20.10.2021 had submitted an application under rule 46A ... responded for the V.C whereas Appellant has requested vide response filed on 31.10.2023 for considering the submission along with the application under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule 1962. 5. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred

The ACIT, 2(1), Bhopal vs. M/S. D.K. Construction, Bhopal

ITA 59/IND/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 801B(10)Section 80I

submitted before AO but filed to CIT(A) during first-appellate proceeding only. The CIT(A) has allowed deduction without following procedure of Rule 46A which is a grave error as per CIT, Trichur Vs. E.D. Benny (2015) 62 taxmann.com 302 (Kerala). Therefore, CIT(A)’s order must be overturned

The ACIT, 2(1), Bhopal vs. M/S. D.K. Construction, Bhopal

ITA 436/IND/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 801B(10)Section 80I

The ACIT, -2(1), Bhopal vs. M/S. D.K. Construction, Bhopal

The appeal of the assesse is disposed off in terms of

ITA 159/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 801B(10)Section 80I

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

Viju Kumar Nair, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 843/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.L. Moolchandani, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT D/R

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69

manner, the appellant had preferred an appeal and filed detailed written submissions along with a request letter for admission of the additional evidences under Rule 46A of IT Rules, 1962. Having received such written submissions and additional evidences, the ld. CIT (A) had obtained comments and counter comments from ... vehemently objected to the observations of the ld. AO about the un-explained cash deposits of Rs.10,48,705/- with supporting evidences submitted under Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962. In the circumstances, the observations of the ld. CIT (A) are factually and patently incorrect which do not hold

Manish Dhankar, Jhunjhunu(Rajasthan) vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward -2-Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu-Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 817/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 56(2)(vii)

accept the application for admission of additional evidences by the assessee inspite of the fact that assessee's case was well covered under Rule 46A of the statute book. Same is also against the principles of natural justice. It is hereby prayed to hold the SHRI MANISH DHANKAR ... furnished his submission Further, the AO has rightly pointed out in the Remand Report that the appellant failed to specify the clause of Rule 46A(1) under which his case falls because all the additional evidences were available with the appellant at the time of assessment proceedings and merely making

ACIT 16.3, Mumbai vs. Dr. Sangeeta Ganpat Sawant, Mumbai

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

ITA 3743/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Shri BhangepatilPushkaraj Ramesh, Sr.DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

following the fact that the submission/evidences of the assessee submitted to the Id. CIT(A) can be admitted with the compliance of Rule 46A. 7. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not giving any instruction/direction to the AO to verify ... Whether on facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not adhering to observing the Rule 46A.” The first issue that arises for consideration, in the present case, pertains to deletion of addition made under section 69 of the Act on account of investment

Income Tax Officer, Gonda vs. M/S. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Balrampur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 184/LKW/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 250(4)Section 253(3)

assessee without giving opportunity and calling for remand report from the Assessing Officer u/s 250(4) of the IT Act read with Rule 46A(3) of the I.R. Rules, 1962.” I.T.A. No.184/Lkw/2023 Assessment year:2013-14 2 (B) The appeal filed by Revenue is beyond the time limit prescribed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. Ritman Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1168/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 148Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 43CSection 53A

facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee violating the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules by admitting & relying on the registered cancellation agreement dated 08.07.2023 without calling for the comments of the AO on such fresh ... Commercial Pvt. Ltd. around the ld. CIT(A) taking cognizance of the cancellation of JDA dated 08.07.2023, without going through the procedure enshrined in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. As had been mentioned earlier, this agreement would not possibly have been before the ld. AO since

Amarjit Singh, Sonipat, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sonipat, Haryana

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

ITA 1989/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 69A

relevant judgements passed by the Hon'ble HC on which appellant relied upon during the appeal proceeding. 6. Invalid rejection of additional evidence under Rule 46A of income tax rules 1962. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting additional evidence submitted under Rule 46A of the income tax rule

Income Tax Officer, Gonda vs. M/S. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Balrampur

ITA 185/LKW/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow15 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 253(3)Section 26A

assessee without giving opportunity and calling for remand report from the Assessing Officer u/s 250(4) of the IT Act read with Rule 46A(3) of the I.R. Rules, 1962.” (B) The appeal filed by Revenue is beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 253(3) of the Income

The ACIT., Patan Circle, Patan vs. Shiv Refoils and Cakes, Chansama, Patan

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1672/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1672/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Acit Shiv Refoils & Cakes बनाम/ Patan Circle, Plot No.2 Gidc Estate V/S. Patan – 384 265 Chanasma, Patan

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah & Rushin Patel, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Prithviraj Meena, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 68

erred in law and on facts in admitting the additional evidences without drawing satisfaction on one or more of the circumstances laid down in Rule 46A of the I.T.Rules 1962, when the AO has given ample opportunities to the assessee to furnish the requisite details.” 2. “Whether, the Ld. Commissioner ... decided on the basis of the same. Ground Numbers 1 and 2, raised by Revenue, are relating to admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A. 4. Under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, additional evidence can be admitted at the appellate stage if specific conditions are met, such