← 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

Babu Lal Sharma, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 178/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 68

letter dt. 11.07.2023. 2. During the course of appellate proceedings, the Authorized Representative of the appellant has furnished an application for additional evidences under Rule 46A, detailed written submissions (copies enclosed). You are requested to examine the following :- (i) Whether the additional evidences are admissible in terms of Rule 46A

The ITO, Ward-2, Gandhinagar vs. M/S. Iscon Procon Pvt. Ltd., Gandhinagar

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 29/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Benches, Ahmedabad For Two Different Assessee’S , Have Arisen From The Separate Appellate Orders Dated 29.10.2019( Appeal No. Cit(A)/Gnr/22/2017-18) Passed By Id. Cit(A), Gandhinagar U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 & Appellate Order Dated 31.10.2019( Appeal No. Cit(A)/Gnr/21/2017-18) Also Passed U/S 250 By Ld. Cit(A), Gandhinagar Respectively , Which Appeal(S) Before Ld. Cit(A) In Turn Has Arisen From The Separate Assessment Order(S) , Firstly Dated 29.12.2017 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Rws 147 & Secondly Dated 28-12-2017 Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer U/S. 143(3) Rws 147 Of The 1961 Act, Respectively. Since Both These Appeals Although For Two Difference Assessee’S Raises Similar Issues, They Were Heard Together & Are

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Bhavnasingh Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 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 LT. Rules 1962, when the AO has given ample opportunities to the assessee to furnish the requisite details." li) "Whether ... 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." LT.A Nos. 10 & 29/Ahd/2020

Rajesh Amarsinh Prajapati, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(2)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 94/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 120(3)(a)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 274

appellant continue to maintain the stand which was carefully considered including cash book by the AO before finalizing the assessment. No application under Rule 46A was filed during appellate proceedings. The appellant had deposited cash of Rs.54,52,835/- in various bank accounts during the year that too through various

ITO, WD. -1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Jealous Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenueishereby dismissed

ITA 424/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: the appellate proceedings, or in the course of appellate proceedings.”

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

circumstances of the case and on law, the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in granting relief to assessee without providing the opportunity as per Rule- 46A (3) of I Tax Rule to the A. O. for furnishing Remand Report? 4. The appellant craves leave to make any amend, addition, alternation ... Revenue also raised that the CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee without calling for a remand report from the AO under Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) is not proper and liable to be set aside

Income Tax Office, Ward-6(2), Jaipur vs. Medical Designs India Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 236/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Ratan Lal Goyal (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

were issued at the wrong address. They have sufficient reason to advance the additional evidence in the first appeal and thereby an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules vide which following additional evidence was placed on record: e copy of agreement to sale dated 12.06.2006. e Copy

Choudhari Construction Co, Goregaon-W vs. Managing Partner, Mumbai

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

ITA 4106/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Choudhari Construction Co. Asst. Cit Circle-31(1), 151/129, Sidharth Nagar, Road No. 5 Mumbai-400020. Vs. Behind Cinemax Cinema, S.V. Road, Goregoan (W), Mumbai-400062. Pan No. Aabfc 2689 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sujeet Tabashi (Employee)For Respondent: 20/08/2024
Section 144Section 145Section 68

afresh with liberty to the assessee for filing him for deciding afresh with liberty to the assessee for filing additional evidence in terms of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, additional evidence in terms of Rule 46A of the Income additional evidence in terms of Rule 46A

Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 520/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2007-08 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Maharashtra Airport Tax- 3(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Mumbai 12Th Floor,World Trade Centre, Vs. Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400 005

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 220(2)Section 234BSection 57

assessee which was never filed before the AO earlier and adjudicating in favour of Assessee on that basis without fulfilling the conditions of Rule 46A of IT Rules, 1962, thereby denying AO the opportunity to examine the same? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... assessee. 2.2. From the above, we note that grounds of appeal, in the appeal by Revenue essentially relate to fulfilling the conditions to Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, thereby denying the ld. Assessing Officer for the reasonable opportunity of examining the same. 2.3. In the appeal

ACIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7497/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2007-08 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Maharashtra Airport Tax- 3(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Mumbai 12Th Floor,World Trade Centre, Vs. Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400 005

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 220(2)Section 234BSection 57

assessee which was never filed before the AO earlier and adjudicating in favour of Assessee on that basis without fulfilling the conditions of Rule 46A of IT Rules, 1962, thereby denying AO the opportunity to examine the same? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... assessee. 2.2. From the above, we note that grounds of appeal, in the appeal by Revenue essentially relate to fulfilling the conditions to Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, thereby denying the ld. Assessing Officer for the reasonable opportunity of examining the same. 2.3. In the appeal

Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Kolhapur vs. Parth Corporation, Gadhinglaj, Kolhapur

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1131/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Respondent: Shri Nikhil Pathak
Section 147Section 151Section 46A(3)Section 69

herein has erred in law and on facts in deleting the impugned addition after admitting assessee’s additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1963 and therefore, we ought to restore the matter back to the Assessing Officer so as to enable ... above extracted findings deleting the impugned addition on the ground that the assessee had never filed any additional evidence which could attract rule Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1963. He invited our attention to the corresponding section 151 approval by the competent authority to the Assessing Officer

Keshavlal Chaturdas Patel, Mehsana vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Mehsana

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

ITA 667/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.667/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Keshavlal Chaturdas Patel The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 11, Anand Nagar Society Ward-2 V/S. Manav Ashram Mehsana Visnagar Road Mehsana – 384 001 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bihpp 3886 P (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divatia, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ashesh R. Rewar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashesh R. Rewar, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

property and bank statements showing the source of cash deposits. The assessee has submitted that this additional evidence should be admitted under Rule 46A, as it is crucial for the fair adjudication of the matter. 5.3. We observe that there is a significant contradiction between the nature of the assessee

Kerala Gazetted Officers Co-Operative Society Limited No. T-424, Trivandrum vs. The Income Tax Officer, Trivandrum

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 203/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhkerala Gazetted Officers The Income Tax Officer Co-Op. Society Ltd. Ward - 2(1), Trivandrum Vazhuthakkdu, Thycaud Post Vs. Trivandrum 695014 [Pan: Aacak6865C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. KrishnanFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 46ASection 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in rejecting the submissions made by the appellant as additional evidence, no admissible and violative of Rule 46A(1) of the Income Tax Rules. 5) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that what was filed before

Melathur Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Malappuram vs. ITO, Ward-4, Tirur

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 167/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhmelattur Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. The Income Tax Officer Melttur P.O. Ward - 4, Tirur Vs. Malapuram 679326 [Pan: Aacam8880H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Swathi S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 69Section 80P

that although the assessee had filed some documents as additional evidence the same have been found to be not admissible in tune with rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962. 3. The assessee, on the other hand, claims that both the foregoing disallowances/ additions could not have been made

Corporation of Calicut, Calicut vs. DCIT(TDS), Calicut

Appeal of the appellant is dismissed by upholding the order of the AO

ITA 110/COCH/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: ---- None ----For Respondent: Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 206C(7)Section 6A

There is no indication in CIT(A)’s identical lower appellate discussion as to whether the assessee’s said additional evidence was as per Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules or not. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to restore assessee’s instant twin appeals back

Corporation of Calicut, Calicut vs. DCIT(TDS), Calicut

Appeal of the appellant is dismissed by upholding the order of the AO

ITA 109/COCH/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: ---- None ----For Respondent: Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 206C(7)Section 6A

There is no indication in CIT(A)’s identical lower appellate discussion as to whether the assessee’s said additional evidence was as per Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules or not. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to restore assessee’s instant twin appeals back

Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), Nagpur vs. Shri Waman Mahadeorao Sarode, Nagpur

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

ITA 189/NAG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 147Section 148Section 250(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

presented during the assessment stage before the Assessing Officer. ii) The learned CIT(A) erred in granting relief to the assessee in contravention FO Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.” 4. Facts in Brief:– . The Assessing Officer received information from Income Tax Officer (I&CI)(Hq), Nagpur, that ... also apparent from the Written Submissions. Nothing was before the Assessing Officer. So, it is a clear–cut case of violation of provisions Rule–46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The learned CIT(A) has abjectly failed to perform his duty under section

Samrat Kumar Ghosh, Darjeeling vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1495/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Sept 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1495/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Samrat Kumar Ghosh……..…….…....…………….......…....………....Appellant Tumbe Jote, Matigara, Rabin Sen Colony, Darjeeling, W.B – 734010. [Pan: Aqepg2359J] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), Siliguri.......................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 24, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.03.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Lower Authorities In Making Addition Of Rs.55,53,171/- On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credits. 3. The Assessing Officer Found That There Were Cash Credits In The Bank Account Of The Assessee. However, The Assessee Could Not Give Satisfactory Explanation Regarding The Source Of The Said Cash Credits. Even The Assessee Did Not Reply To The Various Notices Issued By The Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, Therefore, Made The Impugned

Section 144Section 250

aforesaid contention of the assessee stating that the assessee had not made such submissions before the Assessing Officer. That even no formal application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 for additional evidence was filed before the CIT(A). He, therefore, dismissed the appeal of the assessee

M/S.Winwood Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Kolkata.

ITA 675/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 675/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Winwood Marketing Pvt. Limited,………Appellant 9/12, Lal Bazar Street, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aabcw3528M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-6(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Ankit Jalan, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Arun Kumar Meena, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: July 02, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: September 24, 2024 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

appeal was also instituted before the ld. CIT(Appeals) on 28.05.2015. The assessee has neither applied 2 M/s. Winwood Marketing Pvt. Limited under Rule 46A for production of these assessment orders nor taken any step upto now. 5. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record

ITO-5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bkc Dwellings Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3847/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.P.DewaniFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

deleting the addition made on the basis of assessee's submission but without giving opportunity to the AO as per sub-rule (3) of rule 46A of IT rules 1962 by calling for remand report. 4. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the grounds

Nandkumar Yadavrao Tasgaonkar, Mumbai Dadar (West) vs. JCIT, Circle - 16(3), Ayakar Bhavan

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1726/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 143(3)

notice, dated 8/12/2022, Appellant had filed Reply Letter, dated 20/06/2023, whereby the Appellant had also moved an application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. It appears that since the time limit to comply with the notice, dated 08/12/2022, lapsed on 15/12/2022, submissions

Pradipkumar Arvindbhai Kothari, Botad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(10), Bhavnagar

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

ITA 889/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh K Das, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69A

produce the same before AO. The NFAC ought not to have taken a technical view of having not submitted a separate application as per Rule 46A. ON the contrary the appellant should have been informed and thereby given opportunity to make such application. 3.1 The Id. NFAC has grievously erred