← 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

Mr Abhisheek Ambalal Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4799/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalmr. Abhishek Ambalal Vs. Ito, Ward 19(1)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Jain, Bandra (E), Flat No. 704 M Wing, Mumbai-400051. 7Th Floor, Panchsheel Garden Building, Kandivali (W), Mumbai -400067. Pan/Gir No. Aecpj8567R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By Shri Nishit Gandhi.Ar Respondent By Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 12.08.2024 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: “ The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 57Section 68

identity, genuineness and creditworthiness cannot be doubted. Further the Ld.AR highlighted that, in the appellate proceedings the assessee has filed an application under rule 46A of the Income Tax rules 1962 for admission of additional evidence placed at page101&102 of the paper book and the same was overlooked

DCIT Circle-2, Muzaffarnagar vs. Raghuveer Metal Industries Limited, Delhi

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

ITA 9379/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Pareekita No:- 9379/Del/2019 (Assessment Year- 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Choudhary, CA &For Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 68

that the order passed by the CIT(A) contravened the ITA No.- 9379/Del/2019 M/s Raghuveer Metal Industries Limited principle of natural justice under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Ld. DR pointed out that the confirmations placed as additional evidence before the CIT(A) should not have

Vijaykiran Educationaltrust, Bangalore Karnataka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Circle-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 974/BANG/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran D., D.R
Section 11Section 250

during the course of assessment proceedings. Nor did the assessee file any submissions supported by proper evidence along with a petition under Rule 46A for admission of evidence in the appellate proceedings. The assessee has not controverted the findings of the AO supported by proper evidence. He also found that

Shanana Riyaz Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO-41(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2921/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Shyam AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 50C

support of its claim. The learned AR further submitted that the assessee also filed an application for seeking admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 (“the Rules”) before the learned CIT(A). It was further submitted that in response to the aforesaid application seeking ... 11/10/2023 along with necessary supporting documents. We further find that on 09/10/2023, the assessee filed an application seeking admission of the additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Rules. We find that the learned CIT(A) accordingly sought remand report from the AO in respect of the additional evidences filed

Dy.CIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Needful Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3348/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra &For Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

revenue that the Ld CIT(A) was not justified in considering those documents and further, the first appellate authority has violated the provisions of Rule 46A in not confronting those documents with the assessing officer. 8. We noticed earlier that the nature and quantum of addition made in the original ... Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it cannot be considered that there was violation of Rule 46A of IT Rules, as contended by the revenue. 9. We shall now examine as to whether the assessee has discharged the onus placed upon

Dy.CIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Needful Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2940/MUM/2023[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2024

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra &For Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

revenue that the Ld CIT(A) was not justified in considering those documents and further, the first appellate authority has violated the provisions of Rule 46A in not confronting those documents with the assessing officer. 8. We noticed earlier that the nature and quantum of addition made in the original ... Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it cannot be considered that there was violation of Rule 46A of IT Rules, as contended by the revenue. 9. We shall now examine as to whether the assessee has discharged the onus placed upon

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I, Bhopal vs. Som Distilleries Private Limited, Bhopal

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 289/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

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

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

contended that the CIT(A) has not given opportunity to AO and accepted assessee’s submission which is a clear violation of Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, the matter must be remanded back to AO/CIT(A). (ii) In Ground 1(b), the revenue’s grievance is that ... when notified. Therefore, there was no violation of Page 11 of 54 Som Distilleries Private Limited I.T.A. Nos. 272 & 289/Ind/2023 - A.Y. 2014-15 Rule 46A as being claimed by revenue. So far as the decision of Jansampark Advertising (supra) is concerned, that is not applicable to assessee’s case

Som Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. ITO-1(3), Bhopal

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 272/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

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

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

contended that the CIT(A) has not given opportunity to AO and accepted assessee’s submission which is a clear violation of Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, the matter must be remanded back to AO/CIT(A). (ii) In Ground 1(b), the revenue’s grievance is that ... when notified. Therefore, there was no violation of Page 11 of 54 Som Distilleries Private Limited I.T.A. Nos. 272 & 289/Ind/2023 - A.Y. 2014-15 Rule 46A as being claimed by revenue. So far as the decision of Jansampark Advertising (supra) is concerned, that is not applicable to assessee’s case

Lumis Biotech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1033/MUM/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawallumis Biotech Pvt Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Circle -7(1)(1), Room No.130, 1St Floor, 501, Arun Chambers, Ayakar Bhavan, Tardeo, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400034. Mumbai -400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacl1066G (अपीऱाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hitesh P. Shah.Ar Respondent By Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 31.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 01.08.2024 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: “ The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi/Cit(A), Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Hon. Cit(A) Ought To Have Appreciated The Fact That The Appellant Could Not Represent Its Case Due To Circumstances Beyond Its Control. 2 The Hon. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Disregarding The Fact That The Accountant Had Made Inadvertent Mistake In Claiming Deduction U/S.35(2Aa).

Section 35

considered the grounds of appeal, submissions of the assessee, findings of the AO and the assessee has also filed additional evidence under Rule 46A of I T Rules and was rejected by the CIT(A) and further sustained the disallowances made by the A.O and dismissed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved

The Panchmahals Dist. Co. Op. Bank Ltd., Godhra vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 675/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.675/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Panchmahals Dist. Co- The Ito Op.Bank Ltd. बनाम/ Ward-3(1)(2), Prabha Road Vadodara V/S. Dahod Highway Godhra – 389 001 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaajt 0268 P (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 14/08/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 29/12/2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income The Panchmahals Dist. Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 69A

Ld.CIT(A) also reproduced the remand report of the AO. In the remand report, the AO objected to admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1963. The assessee in its rebuttal to remand report submitted that they have not submitted any new evidence, but still ... wherein it was held that additional evidence must be considered if a remand report has been requested. This judgment highlights the procedural aspects of Rule 46A regarding the admission of additional evidence before the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals). It underscores the importance of recording reasons for admitting such evidence and ensuring that

Sachin Shantilal Runwal, Dhule vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward-2, Dhule

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

ITA 885/PUN/2024[201718]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024

Bench: SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 2Section 250Section 68Section 69ASection 80T

find that the assessee furnished a written submission along-with supporting documents, before the First Appellate authority i.e. LD CIT (A)/NFAC. As per Rule 46A of the IT Rules, LD CIT(A)/NFAC send all these documents for the comments of the AO, who furnished his remand report before

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Nagpur vs. Vinodkumar Rajendralal Kochhar, Kamptee

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

ITA 386/NAG/2023[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Jul 2024

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44A

part of the record of the AO and furnishing of the same in these appeal proceedings does not constitute any additional evidence under rule 46A of the Act. Even otherwise, this order has relied upon the data from departmental ITS data in above para of this order to decide

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur vs. M/S. Neel Infratech, Nagpur

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

ITA 125/NAG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Suren Duragkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 250Section 69C

gone through the evidences on record and perused the submission. We find that the department has not pressed the ground of non-adherence to Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules regarding production of additional evidence before the CIT(A). In fact, in the paper book the assessee has submitted vide

Sri. Shankar Souhardha Pattina Sahakari Niyamit, Gulbarga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1& Tps, Gulbarga

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

ITA 1182/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Atul Alur, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sneha Sahai, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 156Section 2(24)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 80P

wanted to file additional evidence, however, as per Ld. CIT(A), the appellant has failed to make out a case for additional evidence under Rule 46A and hence not allowed to file additional evidence. The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal, the said order ... which were furnished before the CIT(Appeals) also. We also note from the appeal set that the assessee has filed petition under Rule 46A dated 29.10.2023 which contains the following:- 1. Audited financial statements and copy of audit report. 2. Statement showing opening cash, receipts and payments including cash deposited

Jayprakash Ramchandra Shinde, Mumbai vs. Ward-28(1)(4), 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 2196/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jayprakash Ramchandra Shinde Ward 28(1)(4), Flat No. 1, Gr Flr Plot No. 135/A, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Sector-6, Sarsole Nerul, Bandra (East), Navi Mumbai-400706. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Bccps 4784 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Bhupendra Shah
Section 143(2)Section 234Section 271

evidence if any by the assessee CIT(A) for considering the additional evidence if any by the assessee in accordance with law including the Rule 46A of the Income-tax in accordance with law including the Rule 46A of the Income in accordance with law including the Rule 46A ... claim. The Ld. CIT(A) if required may call for the required may call for the remand report following the provisions of Rule 46A of the Rules and remand report following the provisions of Rule 46A of the Rules and remand report following the provisions of Rule 46A

ACIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jik Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3857/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

appeal to ITAT stating that the first appellate authority deleted the addition without providing an opportunity to the assessee and invoked the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules 1962. 6. On the day of hearing, the Ld. DR supported the order of Ld. AO and argued that ... filed before the Ld. CIT(A) for the first time and Ld. AO should have been given an opportunity to verify the same under Rule 46A. Per contra, Ld. AR of the assessee argued that the Department should not have filed further appeal at all because the addition itself

Alexis Global Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2), Delhi

ITA 2497/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 194CSection 69C

inspite of providing numerous opportunities, the appellant has failed to furnish the complete details of expenses covered u/s. 194C of the Act. As per Rule 46A, additional evidence can be produced at the first appellate stage when conditions stipulate in the Rule 46A are satisfied and a finding is recorded

DCIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi vs. Iris Computers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1933/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit Central Circle -14 Vs. M/S. Iris Computers Ltd. Delhi E-69, Vasant Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 Pan No.Aaaci9670H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Anu Krishna Aggarwal, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. Ved Jain, Ar Ms. Supriya Mehta, Ar Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2024 Order Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 17.04.2023 Pertaining To A.Y. 2013-14 & Arises Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 31.03.2016 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 [Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’]. 2. Aggrieved By The Order Of The Lower Authorities, The Revenue Is In Appeal Before Us By Raising The Following Grounds:-

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)

before the CIT(A), which was allowed and considered. The order of the Ld CIT(A) as under :- Admission of additional evidence under rule 46A of IT “7. rules: The appellant had submitted application for admission of additional evidences under rule 46A of the IT rules. The same were forwarded ... additional evidence. Considering the above and on the fact that the additions were made on the basis of the documents which were submitted under rule 46A. The appellant had been a regular taxpayer and complying all the statutory requirements. The appellant has submitted that it was prevented by sufficient cause

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Umang H. Thakkar, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2548/AHD/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2150/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Dharmadev House, Income-Tax, Shyamal Cross Road, Satellite, Central Circle 1(1), Ahmedabad – 380015 Ahmedabad Pan : Aavpt 8621 R आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2548/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. 305, Sahajanand Plaza, Bhatta Income-Tax, Ch Ar Rasta, Paldi, Ahmedabad Central Circle 1(1), Pan : Aavpt 8621 R Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR &For Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

No.1 raised by the Revenue reads as under:- “1. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in admitting fresh evidences under Rule 46A without considering the objection of the Assessing Officer that none of the conditions mentioned under that rule were satisfied.” 5.1 The grievance

Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Cent.Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2150/AHD/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2150/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Dharmadev House, Income-Tax, Shyamal Cross Road, Satellite, Central Circle 1(1), Ahmedabad – 380015 Ahmedabad Pan : Aavpt 8621 R आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2548/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. 305, Sahajanand Plaza, Bhatta Income-Tax, Ch Ar Rasta, Paldi, Ahmedabad Central Circle 1(1), Pan : Aavpt 8621 R Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR &For Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

No.1 raised by the Revenue reads as under:- “1. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in admitting fresh evidences under Rule 46A without considering the objection of the Assessing Officer that none of the conditions mentioned under that rule were satisfied.” 5.1 The grievance