“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

Magendra Singh Rathore, Alwar vs. DCIT Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 483/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargiya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 57

furnished now. No further evidences have been submitted. Having perused the submissions, no justification has been made out for making a case under Rule 46A in this regard. No relief is allowed in this regard. It is noted that during the assessment proceedings the appellant has not submitted any other ... INSURANCE 31.03.2015 35,300 TUITION CHALLAN 92 6.10.2015 35,300 TUITION CHALLAN 93 157,550 With a humble prayer to admit the same under Rule 46A because the facts are covered by the clauses thereof. However, taking a practical and sympathetic view, it is prayed that the deduction as claimed

Magendra Singh Rathore, Alwar vs. ACIT Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 460/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargiya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 57

furnished now. No further evidences have been submitted. Having perused the submissions, no justification has been made out for making a case under Rule 46A in this regard. No relief is allowed in this regard. It is noted that during the assessment proceedings the appellant has not submitted any other ... TUITION CHALLAN 92 6.10.2015 35,300 TUITION CHALLAN 93 157,550 With a humble prayer to admit the same under Rule 46A because the facts are covered by the clauses thereof. However, taking a practical and sympathetic view, it is prayed that the deduction as claimed may be allowed. Because

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Hyderabad vs. M/S. Dna Biotech Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1031/HYD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavआ.अपी.सं / Ita Tp No.1031/Hyd/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Dna Biotech Limited (Central Circle-2) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaccd2850L]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D.Praveen, DR

Section 153ASection 68

argued at length that the Ld.CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee without following the mandatory procedure of Rule 46A and hence he prayed that at least, the matter may kindly be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh. 7. No one has appeared

Guru Kripa Seva Ashyram, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Exemption, Ward 1(2), Pune

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

ITA 703/PUN/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri V L JainFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)

NFAC which according to him were additional evidences and due to lack of any application for admission of these additional evidences under rule 46A, he did not admit the same and decided the appeal 11 against the assessee on the basis of material available before him. We further find from ... restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to allow the assessee to move an application under rule 46A for admission of the additional evidences which were filed before him and decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity

Paradise Infrastructure, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 871/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Learned Ao.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

evidences which are required to be admitted only when conditions stipulated therein are met However, there is no accompanying petition of the Appellant under Rule 46A of the Rules, 1962. In this regard, it would be imperative to refer to the provisions contained in rule 46A of the Income ... Rules, 1962 which is being reproduced as under: "Rule 46A.-- (1) The Appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] [or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals), any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the course

M, Ahakalika Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 6(1), Pune

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

ITA 318/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir JainFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 80P(2)(a)

cash register was not furnished before the AO and why it is submitted now without any prayer/ request to entertain such additional evidences under Rule 46A of the IT Rule. This is more akin to a contumacious conduct of the appellant which indicates that the so called cash register

ACIT, Amravati Circle, Amravati vs. Jayant Umakant Mamidwar, Chandrapur

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

ITA 387/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Mohammed LakkadshaFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Salonkhe

Section 143(3)Section 68

no.387/Nag./2023 were not produced before the AO and in which the Ld.CIT(A) had not recorded reasons for admission as required in rule 46A (1) & (2) of I.T. Rules 1962. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... NFAC was justified in accepting the additional evidences filed before CIT(A) only without allowing the AO a reasonable opportunity as prescribed in rule 46A(3) of I.T. Rules 1962. 4. Any other grounds which may be raised at the time of hearing with the permission of Hon'ble ITAT

The ACIT Central-3, Indore vs. Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Khandwa

ITA 228/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 132Section 153ASection 69

freight payments made to truck-owners]. 16. Ld. DR for revenue submitted that during first-appellate proceeding, the assessee filed certain ‘additional evidences’ under Rule 46A of Income- tax Rules, 1962 to CIT(A) with regard to Issue No. 5 and 6. Acting thereupon, the CIT(A) sent a letter ... 27/Ind/2023 & ITA No. 226 & 228/Ind/2023- AY 2013-14 to 2018-19 adjudication done by CIT(A) on Issue No. 5 and 6 is against Rule 46A and must be set aside. 17. Per contra, Ld. AR for assessee supported the action of CIT(A). For this, Ld. AR firstly carried

Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Khandwa vs. The ACIT Central-3, Indore

ITA 226/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Section 132Section 153ASection 69

Ace Urban Developers Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. AO, Vijayawada

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

ITA 79/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.79, 118 & 284/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2016-17) Ace Urban Developers Private Limited V. The Asst. Cit- Circle-2(1) Module No. A1, A2,A3 Vijayawada – 520002 Quadrant No. 4, 4Thfloor Andhra Pradesh Cyber Tower, Hitech City Madhapur B.O. Sheikpet, Hyderabad-500081, Telangana [Pan: Aanca4001H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sk Gupta,Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Sr.Ar

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

79/VIZ/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17). 15. During the first Appellate Proceedings the assessee has submitted a petition seeking admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A of I.T.Rules, while submitting the following evidences: - Page No. 6 I.T.A.Nos.79, 118 & 284/VIZ/2024 ACE URBAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED 1. Bank Statements of the Shareholders ... general in nature and needs no adjudication. 19. Ground Nos. 2 & 3 is with respect to the additional evidences filed under Rule 46A of I.T. Rules. On this issue, Ld.AR submitted that assessee has submitted following documents before Ld. CIT(A) which was not submitted before Assessing Officer: - 1. Bank

Ace Urban Developers Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 284/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

Ace Urban Developers Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. AO, NFAC

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

ITA 118/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

Malipeddi Giridhar, Amalapuram vs. The Asstistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kakinada

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

ITA 169/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.169/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Malipeddi Giridhar V. The Asst. Cit- Circle-1 Income Tax Office D.No.7-1-20, Mgr Mall Deepthi Towers Tk Street, High School Road Main Road, Kakinada - 533001 East Godavari District – 533201 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Amhpm0210B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Sr.Ar

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 37(1)Section 40Section 68

assessee made written submissions by providing additional evidences. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the additional evidences as specified under Rule 46A(1) of I.T. Rules thereby rejected the additional evidences. Thereafter the Ld. CIT(A) considering the other submissions partly allowed the appeal of the assessee ... portal on 14.02.2024, wherein evidence is placed at Page No. 48B of the paper book in Item No.18 seeking admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A of I.T. Rules. He pleaded that the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the submission of additional evidences and has also not called

Allen Laboratories Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-10(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 663/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

given such justification though specifically called for as such, the information submitted before the first appellant authority becomes additional evidence as per rule 46A of the Income Tax rules, 1962. In the absence separate application under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962 and also in the absence of justification ... assessee has filed papers that has been refused by the ld. CIT(A) only on this ground that there is no separate application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and also in the absence of justification with regard to submission of additional evidence, we are of this

The Executor to the Estate of Sukhendu Prasad Choudhury, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 29, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1278/KOL/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2024AY 2022-2023

Bench: Sri Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(1)

I.T.A. No.: 1278/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23 The Executor to the Estate of Sukhendu Prasad Choudhury. fresh evidence, if so required, under Rule 46A of the Rules and thereby pass a speaking order.” 4.1. Clearly the appellant deserves relief in terms of credit for TDS standing in his name

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune vs. Mahindra International School Academy, Pune

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 980/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 143(3)

appellate stage confined to the principles of natural justice, but incongruous with the doctrine of "Stare Decisis" and the procedure prescribed under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or omit any or all the grounds of appeal.” 4 ITA.No

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Paradise Properties, Sarojni Marg, Jaipur

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 324/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

revenue’s appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in admitting the additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 without giving adequate opportunity to the AO in remand proceedings. 2. On the facts and circumstances ... erred in admitting the additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 in spite of the fact the assessee remained non-compliant during assessment proceedings as well as remand proceedings. 3. On the facts and circumstance and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in admitting

DCIT, Circle-43(1), Civic Centre vs. Hart Travels and Real Estate Solutions LLP, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3543/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary, N.C. Roy, JCIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 271A

preceding and current year withdrawals without any reconciliation through accounts. 4. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not providing an opportunity to AO under Rule 46A to give comments/counter the issues raised. 5. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by observing that the AO has disbelieved that

Venkateshwara Wires Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld. Ao As Well As Before The Ld. Cit(A) As The Documents Submitted Was Only In Support Of Confirmations & Other Documents Already Submitted & No New Documents Were Submitted. 2. The Assessee Craves Your Indulgence To Add Amend Or Alter All Or Any Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 801ASection 80I

squared up accounts. The Learned CIT(A) has at first observed that the assessee had submitted additional evidences without any application under Rule 46A and hence, the additional evidence could not be considered. But then, the Learned CIT(A) was kind enough and good enough to consider the evidences furnished ... Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963. However no such application is available on record. Therefore, the assessee has neither filed additional evidences under Rule 46A before Ld. CIT(A) nor under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 before the Hon'ble ITAT Bench. Hence the assessee's case

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Net 4 India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, in the terms indicated herein above

ITA 3657/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs M/S. Net 4 India Ltd., Circle-18(1), Ab-11, Community Centre, New Delhi. Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029. Pan-Aaact0291M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 29.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.09.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-42, New Delhi Dated 17.03.2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 14Section 145(3)

circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in admitting additional evidence with regards to estimation of profit under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 (the Rule) by ignoring finding of facts recorded by the AO in the remand by the AO in the remand ... admission of additional evidence and without considering the fact that the case of the assessee was not covered under any exceptions as stipulated under Rule 46A of the Rule? 3. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting estimated profit