“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

DCIT Central Circle-2, Noida vs. Alok Vatsa, Noida

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 1717/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 132ASection 2(14)

restore the matter to the Assessing Officer. In any case of the matter, Department has not raised any specific ground alleging violation of Rule 46A. In these circumstances, we do not find any deficiency in the decision of learned First Appellate Authority. Ground is dismissed. 5 6. In ground ... very well examine the evidence furnished by the assessee; and, secondly the Department has not raised any specific ground alleging violation of Rule 46A. Under these circumstances, we uphold the decision of learned First Appellate Authority by dismissing the ground. 9. In the result, appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced

JCIT (OSD) Circle- 16(2), New Delhi vs. Mayar Health Resorts Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 3548/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Raghav Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 145(3)Section 209Section 35D(2)(c)

legally justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,33,83,324/-on account of undisclosed membership fee by accepting additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Rules during appellate proceedings without providing an opportunity to the Assessing Officer of being heard? 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances

Mayar Health Resorts Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 326/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Raghav Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 145(3)Section 209Section 35D(2)(c)

Mayar Health Resorts Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 6228/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Raghav Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 145(3)Section 209Section 35D(2)(c)

Mayar Health Resorts Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 5109/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Raghav Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 145(3)Section 209Section 35D(2)(c)

Danabhai Bharvad, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 844/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) In Turn Has Arisen From The Assessment Order Dated 28-11- 2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act 1961. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With Tribunal, Reads As Under:- “1. The Assessing Officer & Commissioner Appeal Have Erred In Law & In Facts, In Considering The Cash Deposit As Un-Explained Cash Deposit.

For Appellant: Shri Mayur Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 249(4)Section 250Section 28

documents such as Land Records 7/12 and 8A as well evidence of agricultural income along with Form No. 35, as an additional evidences under Rule 46A of the 1962 Rules. The assessee has elaborately submitted in SOF filed with Form No. 35 that the assessee along with his family members

Dinesh Bhoja Shetty, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 41(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 369/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Dcit, Circle 41(2)(1) Dinesh Bhoja Shetty Kautilya Bhavan, A 102, Pinewood Chs Ltd. Bandra Kurla Complex, Vasant Garden, Vs. Near Swapna Nagri, Bandra East, Mulund 400080 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aakps8328K Assessee By : Shri Bhavya Sandesha, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri Bhavya Sandesha, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 68Section 69

does not want to file any additional evidences. It is also true that assessee has not made any application for additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules. Despite that, we find that before the learned CIT (A), the assessee submitted a loan statement of Karnataka bank ... file of the learned CIT (A) with a direction to the assessee to file an application for admission of additional evidences in terms of Rule 46A of the Rules, and then to direct ld CIT (A) to decide it on merits. But as the assessee says that the acquisition

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2731/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Dcit, Vs Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., Central Circle-20, Ugf-15, Indraprastha Building, 21, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan-Aaaca0377R Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

admitting additional details and evidences without affording any opportunity to AO in violation of provision of Rule 46A of income tax Rule 1962 and ignoring the request of AO in prescribed form ITNS -51 as required by Ld. CIT (A) before disposal of appeal. 5. On the facts and circumstances ... ratio for computing allowance of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. The Revenue has also assailed admission of additional evidences in contravention of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Thus, the issues raised by the Revenue against the correctness of the impugned order can be broadly divided

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Rajeshkumar Theophilbhai Christie, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 965/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 965/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Income Tax Officer Rajeshkumar बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Ward – 1(3)(1), Theophilbhai Christie Vs. Ahmedabad F-1, Delhiwala Block, Gayakwad Haveli, Raikhad, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Akapc0179L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit.Dr अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : None 16/07/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 25/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 13.10.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That An Information Was Received That The Assessee Had Deposited Cash Of Rs.12,82,000/- In Development Credit Bank Ltd., Vejalpur, Ahmedabad During

For Respondent: None

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the id CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidences under Rule 46A of the IT. Rules, without calling for the A O's remand report on the additional evidences submitted during the appellate proceedings.” 6. Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT.DR explained ... fresh evidences brought on record by the assessee in the course of appeal proceeding. The Ld. CIT(A) has not acted in accordance with Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules and the applicability of the conditions as stipulated in the said Rule was not examined. The submission of the assessee

The JCIT (OSD), Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Magnet Buildtech P. Ltd, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 489/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.489/Ahd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Jcit (Osd) M/S. Magnet Buildtech Pvt.Ltd. Circle-2(1)(1) बनाम/ 906-907, Indraprasth Corporate Ahmedabad Opp. Venus Atlantis V/S. Anand Nagar Road Ahmedabad – 380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaicm 4158 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi & Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, Ars Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 09/07/2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 11/12/2018 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Jcit (Osd) Vs. M/S.Magnet Buildtech Pvt.Ltd. Asst. Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi &For Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

assessment proceeding, the assessee had not given any specific response to the show cause issued by the Assessing Officer and Sub-rule (3) of Rule 46A interdicts the CIT (A) from taking into account any evidence produced for the first time before him unless the Assessing Officer

Late Sh. Banwari Lal Soothwal, Through Legal Heir Sh. Shyam Lal Soothwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Allowed

ITA 845/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Section 147Section 148Section 250

proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A), the Ld.CIT(A) had forwarded copy of the Death Certificate and other documents to the Assessing Officer as per Rule 46A for AO's comments. The Ld.CIT(A) had mentioned on page 8 that no report was received from the AO. The Legal Heir

ACIT, Circle-1, Tirunelveli vs. Esakkimuthu Muthuvel Iyappan, Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 794/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.794/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Esakkimuthu Muthuvel Iyappan, Income Tax, No.4, Highways Road, Circle 1, Tisayanvilai, Tirunelveli 627 011. Tirunelveli 627 657. [Pan : Arupm 4796J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT

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

evidences/ new evidences submitted before the CIT(A) viz., VAT Returns, Sales and purchase register etc to the Assessing Officer as per Income Tax Rules 46A(3), as these details were not furnished before the Assessing Officer by the assessee during scrutiny assessment proceedings. 3. For these and such other ... issues fall for our consideration i.e., (1) addition of cash deposits; (2) CIT(A) erred in not remanding Additional evidences/new evidences to AO under Rule 46A. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee an individual is Proprietor of Sri Venkateswari Jewellers filed his return of income

Ashok Singh, Imli Phatak vs. DCIT Central Circle 2 Jaipur, Lic Building Jaipur

ITA 576/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anil Dhaka (CIT)

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

reply and clarification on the issue during the assessment proceedings. At the same time the appellant has not filed application for additional evidences under Rule 46A. It cannot be verified on the basis of admissible documents that the cash was actually withdrawn by the appellant from the partnership firm

Kritika Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 36(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 172/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Shaantanu Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rishpal Bedi, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250

that the Learned CIT(A) has erred in law in not allowing the additional evidence which was filed by way of an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules 1962. Further that, no remand report has been called for by the CIT(A) prior to passing the order ... assessee submitted before us that before the Learned CIT(A), the assessee though made an application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 dated 28.12.2023 appearing at pages 371 to 374 of the paper book filed before us in regard to the issues

Azad Singh, Faridabad vs. ITO War 1-1, Faridabad

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

ITA 2196/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) & The Assessee Filed Detailed

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the assessee filed detailed submissions before him with an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the same and observed that adequate opportunity was offered to the assessee ... further not correct under the law and to the facts of the case because of rejecting the fresh evidence filed under Rule-46A(b) of the Income Tax Rules, thereby explaining source of cash deposited in bank account only on the basis of remand report sent by the Assessing Officer

Arvind Pandey, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Gurgaon

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

ITA 1982/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 269S

cannot be accepted. He observed that in grounds of appeal, the assessee has submitted that fresh evidence will be submitted for consideration under Rule 46A of the IT Rules, however, nothing Arvind Pandey vs. ITO was submitted. Since, no response from assessee for various notices of hearing

ITO-11(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Qais Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 195/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sachin SarawagiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147

which were not filed earlier before the AO. On 30.05.2022, communication was made to the appellant regarding the allow ability of additional avidences under rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The appellant furnished its submission in this regard on 5 ITA.Nos.195 & 190/Mum./2024 09.06.2022. Thereafter, the additional ... evidences had been forwarded to the AO for his examination in terms of rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 and to submit a 'Remand Report' vide communication letter dated 17.11.2022. The AO submitted Remand Report on 13.12.2022. The appellant furnished its reply to Remand Report

ITO-11(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Qais Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 190/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sachin SarawagiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147

Heena Gems, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 4177/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha JainFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule

Section 143(3)

root of the matter and is essential in adjudicating the matter in appeal we are herewith submitting the same as an additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Act. We therefore request your honour to admit the said evidence by exercising your power vested under Rule 46A

Heena Gems, Mumbai vs. ACIT-16(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 4145/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha JainFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule

Section 143(3)