← 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)

Maharashtra Gramin Bank, Aurangabad vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 1485/PUN/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1485/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Maharashtra Gramin Bank, Vs. Cit(A), Delhi. Plot No.42, Gut No.33 (Part) Village- Golwadi, Growth Centre, Waluj Mahanagar Iv, Cidco, Aurangabad- 431010. Pan : Aacam8494M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ramesh Magar Revenue By : Shri Uma Shankar Prasad Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.05.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1 Erroneous Addition Of Rs. 87,73,904/- I. The Ld. Assessing Officer & The Commissioner (Appeals) Erred In Making & Upholding The Addition Of Rs. 87,73,904/- Without Considering The Appellant'S Explanation That This Amount Is Already Included Under The Head Income From Business Or Profession. The Addition Is Based Solely On The Tds Schedule Without Verifying The Classification Of Income In The Itr, Which Was Incorrectly Classified Due To A Software Error. In The Complex Labyrinth Of Income Tax Law, The Principle Of Finality Serves As A Cornerstone

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh MagarFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 144B

appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1 Erroneous Addition of Rs. 87,73,904/- I. The Ld. Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in making and upholding the addition of Rs. 87,73,904/- without considering the appellant's explanation that this amount is already included under ... appellant did not receive the notices mentioned by the AO, which deprived the appellant of an opportunity to present its case fully. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider the appellant's submission that the software error led to the misclassification of income, and thus did not provide a fair hearing

Goli Pichaiah, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 443/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.443/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Goli Pichaiah V. Ito – Ward – 2(3) D.No. 11-9-45/30 Income Tax Office Plot No. 17, Bhagat Singh Nagar C.R. Buildings, Kannavarithota Guntur – 522004 Mangalagiri, Guntur – 522008 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Bbdpg9796C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 249Section 249(4)(b)Section 4Section 69A

Provided that, in a case falling under clause (b) and on an application made by the appellant in this behalf, the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) may, for any good and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing, exempt him from the operation of the provisions of that

Kodiyil Muhammed Madani Partner, Abc Sales Corporation, Taliparamba vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 837/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

From the above, it is evident that the view limiting the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to issues arising solely from the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is too restrictive to define the Tribunal’s powers. The Tribunal undoubtedly has the discretion to permit or decline the raising of a new ground

Kodiyil Muhammed Madani Partner, Abc Sales Corporation, Taliparamba vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 836/COCH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

From the above, it is evident that the view limiting the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to issues arising solely from the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is too restrictive to define the Tribunal’s powers. The Tribunal undoubtedly has the discretion to permit or decline the raising of a new ground

Kodiyil Muhammed Madani Partner, Abc Sales Corporation, Taliparamba vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 835/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

From the above, it is evident that the view limiting the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to issues arising solely from the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is too restrictive to define the Tribunal’s powers. The Tribunal undoubtedly has the discretion to permit or decline the raising of a new ground

Abc Imports and Exports India (P) Ltd, Ernakulam vs. ACIT Central Circle, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 743/COCH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

From the above, it is evident that the view limiting the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to issues arising solely from the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is too restrictive to define the Tribunal’s powers. The Tribunal undoubtedly has the discretion to permit or decline the raising of a new ground

Abc Sales Corporation, Kasargod vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 536/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

From the above, it is evident that the view limiting the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to issues arising solely from the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is too restrictive to define the Tribunal’s powers. The Tribunal undoubtedly has the discretion to permit or decline the raising of a new ground

Abc Sales Corporation, Taliparamba vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 535/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

From the above, it is evident that the view limiting the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to issues arising solely from the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is too restrictive to define the Tribunal’s powers. The Tribunal undoubtedly has the discretion to permit or decline the raising of a new ground

Abc Sales Corpoation, Payyannur vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 534/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

From the above, it is evident that the view limiting the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to issues arising solely from the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is too restrictive to define the Tribunal’s powers. The Tribunal undoubtedly has the discretion to permit or decline the raising of a new ground

Abc Buildwares India (P) Limited, Pariyaram vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 533/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

From the above, it is evident that the view limiting the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to issues arising solely from the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is too restrictive to define the Tribunal’s powers. The Tribunal undoubtedly has the discretion to permit or decline the raising of a new ground

Abc Buildware India (P) Limited, Pariyaram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 532/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

From the above, it is evident that the view limiting the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to issues arising solely from the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is too restrictive to define the Tribunal’s powers. The Tribunal undoubtedly has the discretion to permit or decline the raising of a new ground

Abc Buildware India (P) Limited, Pariyaram vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 531/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

From the above, it is evident that the view limiting the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to issues arising solely from the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is too restrictive to define the Tribunal’s powers. The Tribunal undoubtedly has the discretion to permit or decline the raising of a new ground

Kodiyil Muhammed Madani(Partner) Abc Sales Corporation, Taliparamba vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Calicut

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 530/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

From the above, it is evident that the view limiting the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to issues arising solely from the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is too restrictive to define the Tribunal’s powers. The Tribunal undoubtedly has the discretion to permit or decline the raising of a new ground

Kodiyil Muhammed Madani(Partner Abc Sales Corporation)., Taliparamba vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 529/COCH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

From the above, it is evident that the view limiting the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to issues arising solely from the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is too restrictive to define the Tribunal’s powers. The Tribunal undoubtedly has the discretion to permit or decline the raising of a new ground

Kodiyil Muhammed Madani, Partner (Abc Sales Corporation), Taliparamba vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 528/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

From the above, it is evident that the view limiting the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to issues arising solely from the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is too restrictive to define the Tribunal’s powers. The Tribunal undoubtedly has the discretion to permit or decline the raising of a new ground

Kodiyil Muhammed Madani, Partner (Abc Sales Corporation), Taliparamba vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 524/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

From the above, it is evident that the view limiting the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to issues arising solely from the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is too restrictive to define the Tribunal’s powers. The Tribunal undoubtedly has the discretion to permit or decline the raising of a new ground

Kodiyil Muhammed Madani, Partner(Abc Salaes Corporation), Taliparamba vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 523/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

From the above, it is evident that the view limiting the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to issues arising solely from the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is too restrictive to define the Tribunal’s powers. The Tribunal undoubtedly has the discretion to permit or decline the raising of a new ground

Muahammed Jabir, Taliparamba vs. ACIT< Central Circle-1, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 522/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

From the above, it is evident that the view limiting the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to issues arising solely from the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is too restrictive to define the Tribunal’s powers. The Tribunal undoubtedly has the discretion to permit or decline the raising of a new ground

Muahammed Jabir, Taliparamba vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 521/COCH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

From the above, it is evident that the view limiting the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to issues arising solely from the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is too restrictive to define the Tribunal’s powers. The Tribunal undoubtedly has the discretion to permit or decline the raising of a new ground

Muahammed Jabir(Partner, Abc Sales Corporation), Taliparamba vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 520/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

From the above, it is evident that the view limiting the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to issues arising solely from the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is too restrictive to define the Tribunal’s powers. The Tribunal undoubtedly has the discretion to permit or decline the raising of a new ground