The CIT(A) refused your additional evidence, saying no Rule 46A application was filed — but you filed one.
Then the refusal cannot stand. Where the application was in fact on record, additional evidence could not be shut out on the ground that none was filed. The order was set aside and the matter remanded.
Decided by the ITAT (ITAT Cochin — Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member)) on 2025-01-21, reported as ITA No. 821/Coch/2024; 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 519. It bears on section 69A, section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Appeals matters.
Rule 46A is where most first appeals are quietly lost. The evidence that would answer the addition exists, but it was not before the officer — so the application, and the ground on which it is made, matter as much as the evidence.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee, in the travel agency business, filed a return for assessment year 2017-18 declaring income of Rs 4,03,170. The Assessing Officer added Rs 3,98,000 as unexplained money under s.69A. Before the Commissioner (Appeals) the assessee produced additional evidence to explain the source of the cash deposits, along with an application under Rule 46A.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, holding that the additional evidence could not be refused on the ground that no Rule 46A application had been filed when such an application was in fact on record.
The first appellate authority dismissed the appeal without admitting the additional evidence, citing the absence of an application under Rule 46A. The record showed that the appellant had in fact filed such an application, which had been ignored. Rule 46A permits fresh evidence where the material was not available earlier, where the Assessing Officer refused to receive it, or where the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing it, and evidence going directly to the source of the disputed cash deposits could not be excluded without consideration.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppThen the refusal cannot stand. Where the application was in fact on record, additional evidence could not be shut out on the ground that none was filed. The order was set aside and the matter remanded. This was decided by the ITAT (ITAT Cochin — Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member)) and bears on section 69A, section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA No. 821/Coch/2024; 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 519. Rule 46A is where most first appeals are quietly lost. The evidence that would answer the addition exists, but it was not before the officer — so the application, and the ground on which it is made, matter as much as the evidence. If it applies to you, the first step is this: File the Rule 46A application as a separate, dated document, not a paragraph inside the submissions.
The assessee, in the travel agency business, filed a return for assessment year 2017-18 declaring income of Rs 4,03,170. The Assessing Officer added Rs 3,98,000 as unexplained money under s.69A. Before the Commissioner (Appeals) the assessee produced additional evidence to explain the source of the cash deposits, along with an application under Rule 46A. The matter was decided on 2025-01-21 by the ITAT (ITAT Cochin — Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member)). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, holding that the additional evidence could not be refused on the ground that no Rule 46A application had been filed when such an application was in fact on record.
The first appellate authority dismissed the appeal without admitting the additional evidence, citing the absence of an application under Rule 46A. The record showed that the appellant had in fact filed such an application, which had been ignored. Rule 46A permits fresh evidence where the material was not available earlier, where the Assessing Officer refused to receive it, or where the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing it, and evidence going directly to the source of the disputed cash deposits could not be excluded without consideration.
It was decided by the ITAT on 2025-01-21 and is reported as ITA No. 821/Coch/2024; 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 519. Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A Tribunal decision binds the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) within that Tribunal's jurisdiction, and is persuasive before other benches. It is not binding on a High Court, and a contrary co-ordinate bench decision will be argued against you, so check whether the point has been taken the other way before you build a reply around it. On section 69A, section 250, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, holding that the additional evidence could not be refused on the ground that no Rule 46A application had been filed when such an application was in fact on record. It arises in Appeals matters, on section 69A, section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by ITAT Cochin — Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member). Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. State which of the Rule 46A grounds you rely on and why the evidence was not produced earlier. Keep the acknowledgement — the whole case here was that the application was on record and had been overlooked.
Validity check could not be completed. Downgraded from 'good law'. The order could not be found in a full-text subscription research database: searches on the party name in both spellings and on the appeal number ITA No. 821/Coch/2024 returned nothing. No later decision applying, following or affirming it was traced, and absence of contrary authority is not good law. The underlying rule is not in doubt — Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules requires the first appellate authority to deal with an application for admission of additional evidence that is on the record — but that rule stands on the Rules themselves and not on this order, whose text has never been read. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The order could not be found in a full-text subscription research database. Three searches were run: the party name as spelled in this entry, which returns nothing; the shorter form of the name, which returns seven unrelated records across Company Law, Transfer Pricing, FEMA and Customs; and the appeal number ITA No. 821/Coch/2024, which returns nothing. The cause title, the bench, the date of 21 January 2025, the assessment year, the figures and the account of what the Tribunal did all rest on a single secondary report, on one domain, and no paragraph of the order has been read. It is not established whether the matter went back to the Commissioner (Appeals) or to the Assessing Officer. Treat the citation as unconfirmed and the entry as a digest listing rather than a reasoned holding. A Tribunal decision, and no verbatim extract from the order was available. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, holding that the additional evidence could not be refused on the ground that no Rule 46A application had been filed when such an application was in fact on record.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
Valuables were found at my premises and I say they are not mine. Who has to prove ownership?
How wide are the first appellate authority's powers when it disposes of an appeal?
Can the CIT(A) use the enhancement power to tax a source of income the Assessing Officer never examined?
Can an appellate authority under the Income-tax Act throw out an appeal because the appellant did not turn up?