← All Phrases

“Commissioner (Appeals)”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(16A) / Section 1174,761 judgments

The decision most relied on for Commissioner (Appeals) is Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (187 ITR 688), cited in 1,372 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Commissioner (Appeals)

Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT
187 ITR 688 · 1991 · Supreme Court
1,372
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) possesses co-terminus powers with the Assessing Officer and can direct the Assessing Officer to perform actions he failed to do, but cannot introduce a new source of income in the assessment. The appellate assessment must be confined to the items of income that were the subject matter of the original assessment.

CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
297 CTR 614 · 2017 · High Court
659
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution or default in appearance. Under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, the CIT(A) must decide the appeal on its merits, even in an ex parte proceeding.

Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT
199 ITR 351 · 1993 · High Court
441
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can consider additional grounds for deduction, even if not originally claimed before the Assessing Officer or Appellate Assistant Commissioner, provided the facts are not disputed and it pertains to a legal claim for correct tax liability. This is because the purpose of an appeal is to ascertain the correct tax liability.

CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate
53 ITR 225 · 1964 · Supreme Court
359
citing judgments

The Commissioner (Appeals) holds plenary powers when disposing of an appeal, with their scope being coterminous with the Assessing Officer. This allows the CIT(A) to exercise all powers of the AO, including admitting additional evidence and redetermining income.

CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry
44 ITR 891 · 1962 · Supreme Court
278
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot enhance an assessment by introducing a new source of income or by changing the head of income during appellate proceedings.

Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar
1 SCC 591 · 1985 · Reported
225
citing judgments

The appellate tribunal must render a proper decision on both facts and law, disposing of an appeal on its merits rather than dismissing it solely due to the appellant's absence. This obligation is derived from Section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and reflects principles of natural justice.

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT
30 SOT 374 · 2009 · ITAT
201
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cannot expand the scope of an assessment or improve the Assessing Officer's case in a manner that usurps the revisional power of the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act.

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.

Judgments citing Commissioner (Appeals)

Income Tax Officer - 10(1)(1), Mumbai vs. K M Textiles Exports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6614/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. The Revenue, in its appeal, has challenged the action of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting the addition of ₹4.60 crores made on account of cash deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee and further deleting ... shown as recoverable 42,80,530 1,59,37,740 6. Before the Assessing Officer as well as before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee explained that it had maintained regular books of account, including a day-to-day cash book, bank books and ledgers, all of which were duly

Preetam Jaiswal, Indore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Jhabua

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 315/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)

which provides “The order of the Page 3 of 5 Preetam Jaiswal ITA No. 315/Ind/2025 - AY 2016-17 Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.”. Referring to Para 4.1 of impugned

Kumud Bajaj, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-1, Khammam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 782/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.782/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Kumud Bajaj, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-1, Pan: Acepb3914A Khammam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Smt. S. Sandhya, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vamsi Krishna, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Vamsi Krishna, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

penalty, the date of service of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty: Further, section 249(3) reads as under: The Commissioner (Appeals) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting ... appeal within the time specified in that sub-section, he may present such appeal before the 1st day of July, 2000. 1. The Commissioner (Appeals) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting

Bharati Jayanti Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 7323/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 250Section 254(1)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Bharati Jayanti Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 7322/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 250Section 254(1)Section 69

Bharti Jayanti Jain (AY 2017-18 to 2019-20) ITA Nos. 7323, 7321 & 7322/Mum/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Bharati Jayanti Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 7321/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 250Section 254(1)Section 69

assessee was not acceded to by the Assessing Officer. When the assessee took up the aforesaid issue before the first appellate authority, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in letter dated 18th July 2016, had clearly directed the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee all adverse materials / documentary evidences available with ... with all the adverse material and if, not so, whether he has provided them to the assessee as per the directions of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, from the aforesaid facts, it is patent and obvious that the addition of `42 lakh made on account of on-money payment

Mhealth Ventures India P Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir-15(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6175/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2016-17 Mhealth Ventures India Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Ltd., Of Income Tax Circle 729H Raj Legacy, Lbs Marg, Vs. 15(2) (2), Andheri, Mumbai – 400083. Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Pan – Aagcm9200P Karve Road, Mumbai – 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Viraj Mehta, Ca (Virtually Appeared) Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.07.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessing Officer, Vide Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Has Made The Additions Of Rs.3,41,84,927/- & Rs.27,410/- Respectively Under Section 56(2)(Vii)(B) & Section 2(24)(X) As Deemed Income & Added The Same To The Income Of The Assessee. 2 Mhealth Ventures India Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, SR. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Commissioner issued notices on mail but not in physical mode. 5. Thus, on the aforesaid reason, the non-compliance before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) appears to be plausible. We further observe that the issues involved also remained to be adjudicated in its right perspective and proper manner, specifically

Veena Hiralal Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals under consideration stand allowed

ITA 5492/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (Ld. CIT- D.R.)
Section 131Section 132Section 153Section 250

opportunity goes to root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment and, therefore, renders the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal vulnerable. The assessee was bound to be provided with the material used against him apart from being permitting him to cross ... 4744/Mum/2025 Pravin Khetaramm Purohit to by the Assessing Officer. When the assessee took up the aforesaid issue before the first appellate authority, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in letter dated 18th July 2016, had clearly directed the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee all adverse materials / documentary evidences available with

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Raj Goenka, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1801/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2022-23 Dcit, Cc-4(3), Kolkata……...……..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Raj Goenka…………………………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent 10Th Floor Magma House, 24, Park Street Park Street, Kol-16. [Pan: Adlpg8181C] Appearances By: Shri S B Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 05, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.04.2025 Of The Cit(Appeals)-27, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2022–23. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 08 Days. The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer ignored the basic tenets of law before invoking his power under section 68. Fortunately, for the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) has done an elaborate factual exercise, took into consideration, the creditworthiness of the 13 companies the details of which were furnished by the assessee. More ... which fact has not been denied by the Assessing Officer. On going through the records and the net worth of the lender companies, the Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded the factual findings that the net worth of those companies is in crores of rupees and they have declared income

The Samastipur District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Samastipur vs. Deputy Commissioner, Darbhanga

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 508/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) provided various opportunities to the assessee as per para 4 of his order, 7 times opportunities were provided but the assessee did not respond any of the notices. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) after relying on various judgments decided the issue on 10.12.2022 on the basis of material available on record and upheld the order of the AO. 4. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the

For Respondent: Sh. Manab Adak, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

appellant about the pendency of notices, proceedings, or PRAYER In view of the foregoing, the appellant most humbly prays that the Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals) may graciously: a) Condone the delay in seeking restoration/re-hearing of the appeal against the order dated 10.12.2022; b) Restore the appeal for hearing on merits

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Modasa, Income Tax Office Modasa vs. Bhagabhai Kacharabhai Patel, Bhiloda, Dist Arvalli, Gujarat

ITA 1492/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 148Section 64Section 69ASection 69C

Officer treated the balance amount as income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings initiated on the assessee. 5. Before the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee submitted that he had not made any investment in the co-operative society and that his bank account had been misused, asserting ... Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel involving similar allegations against the same society. After considering these submissions, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the Assessing Officer had relied only on third-party information and had not cross-verified the assessee’s denial either with

Devtech M2M Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1231/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21 Devtech M2M Limited Dcit, Central Circle 1(1), 4Th Floor, Sava House, Pune Vs. Opp New Airport Road, Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aadcb4376Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Smt Sonal L Sonkavde, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

appeal on merit as per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act which reads as under: “250….. …..…… (6) The order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon

Kk 238 P N Patty Veerakkal Pudur Paccs Ltd., Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 2871/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.S. Senthil Kumar
Section 250Section 270A

penalty. The assessee is noted to have raised a legal issue against levy of penalty which reads as under: 3) Without prejudice, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) also erred in not considering that the Assessing Officer did not specify any particular limb under Sub-Section (9) of Section 270A

Kk 238 P N Patty Veerakkal Pudur Paccs Ltd., Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 2870/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.S. Senthil Kumar
Section 250Section 270A

penalty. The assessee is noted to have raised a legal issue against levy of penalty which reads as under: 3) Without prejudice, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) also erred in not considering that the Assessing Officer did not specify any particular limb under Sub-Section (9) of Section 270A

C-2497 Patchur Paccs, Tirupattur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Vellore

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

ITA 2707/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.G. Goudhaman, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivasan, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 80P

favour of the asses-see. 5. The appeals are allowed. The order under challenge is set aside. The assessment order, that of the Commissioner (Appeals) and of the Tribunal are also set aside. The matter shall now be remanded to the assessing authority for fresh consideration, as aforestated. No order

ACIT, Circle-1 Kalyan, Kalyan vs. F T Textiles Private Limited, Bhiwandi

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

ITA 6238/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)

conditions stipulate in the Rule 46A are satisfied and a finding is recorded. Rule 46 A reads:- “Production of additional evidence before the [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] [and Commissioner (Appeals)]. 46A. (1) The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] [or, as the case ... Commissioner (Appeals)], any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the course of proceedings before the [Assessing Officer], except in the following circumstances, namely : FT Textiles Pvt.Ltd. (a) where the [Assessing Officer] has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted

Knp Associates, Agra vs. Ward 1(1)(1), Agra

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 547/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshknp Associates, Vs. Acit, 10, Panchwati Colony, Circle-1, Vinay Nagar, Bodla, Agra Nashik (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaufk5403H Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Molhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Molhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145Section 145(3)Section 250

Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal before me :- “1. BECAUSE, the impugned Order dated 07.10.2025 passed by the Ld Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC is bad in law as the same has been passed ex-parte without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 2. BECAUSE, the impugned

M/S Eklavya Estate Pvt.Ltd., Ranchi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ranchi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Eklavya Estate Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., H-95, Harmu Housing Colony, Central Circle-2, Vs. Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aabce 5815 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133ASection 270ASection 274

following, namely:- (a) the amount of income in respect of which the assessee offers an explanation and the Assessing Officer or 20[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner, as the case may be, is satisfied that the explanation is bona fide ... basis of an estimate, if the accounts are correct and complete to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer or 21[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or) the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner, as the case may be, but the method employed is such that the income cannot

Barhattakar Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Raipur, Raipur vs. ITO-2, Itarsi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose, subject

ITA 583/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 147

adjudication by CIT(A) on merit in accordance with provisions of 250(6) of the Act which provides “The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision

Income Tax Officer- Ward-1/Jao, Nagercoil vs. Arulanandham Ber Syril Antow, Nagercoil

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2079/CHNY/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Bipin C.N., C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. M.Ramesh Kumar, F.C.A
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 2Section 2(14)Section 40

agricultural activity could not be carried on for various reasons including natural causes, it would not cease to be an agricultural land. Further, Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal had done an elaborate exercise. assessed documents placed before it and given a categorical finding that land continued to remain an agricultural land