Rule 46A compliance and unexplained expenditure addition failed where contemporaneous documents contradicted the Revenue's claim.

Rule 46A was not violated because the record did not show that the assessee introduced fresh material before the first appellate authority, and the materials considered were already part of the assessment record. The unsigned note relied on by the Revenue was not linked to the assessee or the developer's office, while contemporaneous memoranda of understanding and related documents supported the recorded booking rate and did not show any payment beyond disclosed consideration. On those facts, the factual foundation for invoking unexplained expenditure treatment did not survive, so the addition under Section 69C could not be sustained and no substantial question of law arose from the concurrent findings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee had introduced new documents before the first appellate authority in violation of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962; (ii) Whether an addition under Section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was justified on the facts proved on record.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee had introduced new documents before the first appellate authority in violation of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.

Analysis: The record did not show any specific plea in the appeal that the documents relied upon before the appellate authority were not already before the Assessing Officer. The appellate authority also recorded no application by the assessee to place fresh material on record. The materials considered were already part of the assessment record.

Conclusion: The alleged violation of Rule 46A was not established.

Issue (ii): Whether an addition under Section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was justified on the facts proved on record.

Analysis: The unsigned note relied upon by the Revenue was not traced to the assessee's office or to the office of the concerned developer. The assessee relied on memorandum of understandings and other documents showing the agreed booking rate and demonstrating that no amount over and above the recorded consideration had been paid. On those materials, the factual basis for invoking Section 69C did not survive.

Conclusion: The addition under Section 69C was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose from the concurrent findings, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the record does not establish production of fresh evidence before the appellate authority and the contemporaneous documents negate any unexplained expenditure, no addition under Section 69C can be sustained and no substantial question of law arises from concurrent factual findings.

---