← 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)

Vinaya Sharma, Kota vs. ACIT Central Circle, Kota

ITA 628/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT (V.H)
Section 10Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(14)Section 234

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,"B" JAIPUR BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM

Mrs. Shruti Mayank Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 19(3), Mumbai, Piramal Chamber

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

ITA 4370/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh - Sr.DR
Section 10(35)Section 115BSection 250Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(iii)

find that in CIT v/s Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), reported in [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay), the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court held that Commissioner (Appeals) cannot dismiss the appeal on account of non- prosecution of appeal by the assessee.Consequently, we deem it fit and proper to set aside

Munjal Auto Industries Limited, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. DCIT, CPC Bangalore (Now DCIT Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 878/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Waghe Prasad Rao, S.R.-DR
Section 234CSection 250Section 43Section 43B

collected or not. But it does not give the Assessing Officer any jurisdiction to add it in the gross income of the assessee. Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have concurrently found that the assessee has not realized the amount of luxury tax, which was added in its gross

Atpadi Education Societiys Employee Sahkari Path Mandal Limited, Dighanchi Road, Atpadi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5 Sangli, Sangli

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 918/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.918/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Atpadi Education Societiys Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Employee Sahkari Path Sangli Vs Mandal Limited, Dighanchi Road, Atpadi, Sangli, Maharashtra, 415301 Pan No. Aaaaa6827A Appellant/Assessee Respondent/Revenue

Section 144Section 250Section 80P

representative, as the case may be, may request for personal hearing so as to make his oral submissions or present his case before the Commissioner (Appeals), through the National Faceless Appeal Centre, under this Scheme”, rule 12(3) ensures that such a personal hearing will invariably be granted, on-demand ... through video conferencing by providing that “(3) The concerned Commissioner (Appeals) shall allow the request for personal hearing and communicate the date and time of hearing to the appellant through the National Faceless Appeal Centre” and “(4) Such hearing shall be conducted through video conferencing or video telephony, including

Eriki Murali, Tirupati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(4), Tirupati

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 622/HYD/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Oct 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.622/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

evidence to substantiate the grounds raised. 7. Requirement of law under section 250 (6) of the Act is that 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. Even

M/S. Bhumi Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 10(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1166/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

ground of deletion of disallowance amounting to Rs. 40.29 lakhs under section 14A, recorded that there was no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who deleted the disallowance made following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Lakhani Marketing Inc. (supra). The argument

DCIT, CC-I, Chandigarh vs. Valco Industries Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 574/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hon'Ble Punjab & Haryana High Court? Ii) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Is Right Holding Such Consequential Order As Void An Initio Ignoring The Facts That Order Passed By Ld. Pcit (Central), Gurugram U/S 263 Has Not Attained Its Finality? Iii) Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Right In Holding That Consequential Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 263 Of The Act As Void As Initio Without Giving Any Liberty To The Revenue To Revive The Proceedings Consequent To Any Directions Or Order

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80I

claimed deduction under Section 801 of the Act which the Assessing Officer allowed partially. The assessee filed an appeal against the disallowance. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal. Subsequently the Commissioner, in exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Act, disallowed the claim under Section ... held that when the AO has denied the claim of the assessee for benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Act and the Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the said claim, it was a case of merger of assessment order with the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner exercising revisional

Panattu Urumis Chacko, Ernakulam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 1(1), Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 790/COCH/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Terry V James, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. GirIy Albert, Sr. DR
Section 54Section 54F

section 54F. The Assessing Officer rejected the same on the ground that the construction was not completed when he made a personal visit. The Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal allowed the assessees' claim. Held that it was not in dispute that the assessees had purchased the lands by investing the capital ... gain and they had also constructed residential houses. In order to establish the same, the assessees submitted before the Commissioner (Appeals) material evidence, viz., invitation card printed for the house warming ceremony to be held on 12-7-2003. The assessees had also produced the completion certificates from the municipal

Infiben Avenues Ltd (Formerly Infibeam Incorporation Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 108/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

hands of assessees under section 37 and looking into the facts of the assessee's case, as highlighted above, it is viewed that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not erred in facts and in law in deciding this issue in favour of the assessee. [Para 21]” 12. The Hon'ble Apex

Bhaskar Danve Patil, Jalna vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Jalna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes with the directions given above

ITA 285/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Mrs. M.N. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234B

assessee. On account of non- production of parties, the Assessing officer had disallowed expenditure and made addition of such amount. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) after an elaborate examination confirmed only part of total disallowance. The Tribunal deleted entire addition made by Assessing Officer holding that on ground of residential address

Maroofali I Shaikh, Bagalkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bagalkot

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

ITA 981/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69A

Provided that, [in a case falling under cluse (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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 923/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Shreehari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

directly on the point at issue. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bokaro Steel Ltd., on which the Commissioner (Appeals) relied on, is distinguishable as the decision in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., has directly dealt with the pre commencement expense ... from other sources is perfectly justified and the deletion of the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore Page 15 of 17 same by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not in accordance with law. We therefore set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restore that of the Assessing Officer

Maulana Azad Alpasankhyank Arthik Vikas Mahamandal Maryadit, Mumbai vs. ITO, WD-2(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the

ITA 2162/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Br Baskaran & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 217Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

have considered the submissions. Section 271 (1)(b) of the Act provides as under: “Section 271(1) If the Assessing Officer or the °%[Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person

Maulana Azad Alpasankhyank Arthik Vikas Mahamandal Maryadit, Mumbai vs. ITO, WD-2(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the

ITA 2161/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Br Baskaran & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 217Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

have considered the submissions. Section 271 (1)(b) of the Act provides as under: “Section 271(1) If the Assessing Officer or the °%[Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person

Husain Kohawala, Kukshi Distt. Dhar vs. Commissioner of Appeal, NFAC

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 222/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanihusain Kohawala, Cit (A), Saifiya Marg Bohra Mohalla, Nfac, Near Macchi Darwaza, Delhi Kukshi, Vs. Dhar (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bkrpk6392P Assessee By Shri Parag Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.10.2024 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 69A

reasonable opportunity of show cause against such enhancement. For ready reference Sub Section 2 of Section 251 is reproduced as under: “(2) The Commissioner (Appeals) shall not enhance an assessment or a penalty or reduce the amount of refund unless the appellant has had a reasonable opportunity of showing cause ... against such enhancement or reduction.” Explanation.—In disposing of an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) may consider and decide any matter arising out of the proceedings in which the order appealed against was passed, notwithstanding that such matter was not raised before the Commissioner (Appeals) by the appellant. 5.2 Therefore

Dinesh Prabhudas Hingoo, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-31(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 667/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Poojari, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, Sr. D.R
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250

Appellate Tribunal. After detailed discussion, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has recorded the following findings of fact “The above findings recorded by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) are quite exhaustive whereby he has discussed the basis on which the Assessing Officer had made the additions While allowing relief to the assessee ... learned Commissioner (Appeals) has specifically held that there is no adverse comment in the form of general and specific statement by the principal officer of the stock exchange or by the company whose shares were involved in these transactions and he held that the Assessing Officer only quoted the facts

DCIT 41(4)(1), Room No, Kautilya Bhawan, G Block, Bkc, Mumbai vs. Dinesh Prabhudas Hingoo, Jogeshwari(W), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1348/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Poojari, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, Sr. D.R
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250

Appellate Tribunal. After detailed discussion, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has recorded the following findings of fact “The above findings recorded by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) are quite exhaustive whereby he has discussed the basis on which the Assessing Officer had made the additions While allowing relief to the assessee ... learned Commissioner (Appeals) has specifically held that there is no adverse comment in the form of general and specific statement by the principal officer of the stock exchange or by the company whose shares were involved in these transactions and he held that the Assessing Officer only quoted the facts

DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi vs. Genpact India Now Merged With Genpact India Pvt. Ltd.), Haryana

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6773/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 10ASection 10A(4)

with the aforesaid decision of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority. Relying upon certain judicial precedents, learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim of the assessee. 17. Before us, it is a common point between the parties that the issue is squarely covered

Genpact India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6582/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 10ASection 10A(4)

with the aforesaid decision of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority. Relying upon certain judicial precedents, learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim of the assessee. 17. Before us, it is a common point between the parties that the issue is squarely covered

ITO, Ncrb Jaipur vs. Prakash Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 54/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 44ASection 68

also submitted that as per u/r 46A(1) of the 1. T. Rules 1962, the appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the Commissioner (Appeals) any evidence other than the evidence produced by him during the course of proceedings before the AD except in the following circumstances, namely