TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1864
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] dated 18.03.2025 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2018-19. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under: 1. The Hon'ble CIT(A)-NFAC has failed to appreciate the documentary evidences supplied by the appellant during the appellate proceedings on the frivolous reason that procedure of Rule 46A relating to additional evidence has not been followed by the appellant. 2. The Hon'ble CIT (A) -NFAC erred in only highlighting the procedural aspect and not considering the circumstantial evidence and other merits and also not given an opportunity of being heard and disallowing the appeal. 3. The Hon'ble CIT (A) -NFAC erred in considering various case laws referr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s. 69 rws 115BBE of the Act, for such un-explained investment. 4. In the subsequent appeal before the first appellate authority, the assessee sought to furnish certain additional evidences which were not provided to the AO during the course of assessment i.e. agreement of purchase, source of investment, ITR and also the accounts. However, the ld.CIT(A) observed that the assessee had not filed an application under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962 as per procedure and also not filed any supporting affidavit etc., so as to show such proper justification as to why she was not able to attend to this query during the assessment proceedings and or provide the said documents before the AO. The ld.CIT(A) rejected the request and went ahead uph....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tribunal remitting similar the matter back to the AO to reconsider the issue afresh and in accordance with law. In the case of Janaki Ram Babji Rao Annam Vijayawada vs. ITO Ward-3(1) (ITAT Vig.),the Tribunal held that the CIT (A) erred in refusing to admit additional evidence filed by the assessee on the ground that Rule 46A was not specifically invoked. The ITAT remitted the matter back to him with direction to admit and consider the additional evidence on its merits, emphasizing that such evidence should be admitted if relevant to the issues and necessary for a fair adjudication, rather than rejected on mere procedural grounds. In the case of Munireddy Prakashreddy vs ITO (ITAT Chen), the Tribunal held that mere non mentioning of Rule 46A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....such further enquiry as he thinks fit or direct the AO to make further enquiry. The additional evidence could be obtained by the CIT(A) on his own motion and there is no law that he should invariably consult or confront the AO with such evidence. If the evidence produced are clinching in nature and no purpose would be served by forwarding the same to the AO, in such exceptional circumstances, the said requirement could be dispensed with. The powers conferred on the appellate authority u/s 250(4) being quasi judicial powers, it is incumbent on him to exercise the same if the facts circumstances justify. The assessee should not be disqualified from producing evidence merely for the fact it was not produced before the AO. It is incorrect to sh....