“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)

Manju Devi Agrawal, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands party allowed with no orders as to cost

ITA 273/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 251Section 251(2)Section 271(1)Section 274

reproduced below. 5 MRS. MANJU DEVI AGARWAL VS ITO,WARD 6(2), JAIPUR Section 251. (1) In disposing of an appeal, the 86 [**]Commissioner (Appeals) shall have the following powers- (a) in an appeal against an order of assessment, he may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment ... reduce the penalty, (c) in any other case, he may pass such orders in the appeal as he thinks fit, (2) The 93[***] 94[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

Vimladevi Agrotech Limited, Kota vs. ACIT, WD -1(2), Kota

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

ITA 1065/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Chaudhary, JCIT D/R

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

contradictory to the mandate of Section 250(6). The same is reproduced here under for your ready reference: “(6) 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 ... Assessee or due to the Assessee seeking to withdraw the appeal or if the assessee does not press the appeal. When the Commissioner (Appeals) dismisses the appeal of assessee in limine for non- prosecution of appeal by the assessee; in effect, indirectly it leads to same results as withdrawal

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Chhaganlal Dalaji Soni, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 531/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Milin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. DR

loss account was rightly discarded by the Assessing Officer, it was found that a rational basis was not adopted by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal rightly set aside the best judgment assessment of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the Assessing Officer had not brought ... therefore, held that cash deposited was liable to be added under section 68 and taxable @60% under provision of section 115BBE. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) deleted addition. Ld. CIT(Appeals) found from records that assessee had maintained regular books of account, bills, vouchers and day-to-day stock register having

Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited, Mehsana vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, Ground No

ITA 294/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT DR

Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

thereby confirmed the addition of Rs.77,85,98,388/- being the additional depreciation. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the legislative intent behind the provisions in right spirit. 4.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the ground relating ... thereby confirmed the addition of Rs.68,44,83,100/- being the additional depreciation. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the I T Act have been amended by the Finance Act 2016 applicable from Asst. Year 2017-18 providing for allowance

Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited, Mehsana vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, Ground No

ITA 293/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT DR

Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited, Mehsana vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, Ground No

ITA 292/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT DR

Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited, Mehsana

In the result, Ground No

ITA 271/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT DR

Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited, Mehsana

In the result, Ground No

ITA 270/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT DR

Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited, Mehsana

In the result, Ground No

ITA 269/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT DR

Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

Vadakkevila Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Kollam vs. The ITO, Kollam

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 478/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms.Anoopa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 40Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

hereinafter. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee pleads following substantive grounds in the instant appeal:- “1. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is contrary to the law, facts, and circumstances of the case and at any rate is opposed to the principles of equity, natural justice ... fair play. 2 ITA No.478/Coch/2023. Vadakkevila SCB Ltd. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer denying the deduction claimed

Kanhiaya Lal Sain, Jaipur vs. JCIT Range-7 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the Appeals of the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 1022/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 271Section 271DSection 271E

were not based at Valsad—Transaction was found to be genuine—AO had not doubted transaction, in that view of matter, both Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal rightly deleted penalty—High Court did not find any infirmity in orders passed by Tribunal— In this case the transaction was found ... genuine—AO had not doubted transaction—Both Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal rightly deleted penalty—High Court did not find any infirmity in orders passed by Tribunal—Revenue’s Appeal dismissed. 4. Ignorance of law is a reasonable cause u/s 273B: In any case, it is clear that the assessee proceeded

Anju Chirania, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3158/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalanju Chirania, Vs. Ito, Ward –4(1)(3), 301, Sona Chambers, Room No. 637, 507/509, Jss Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Chira Bazar, Marine Lines, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Afcpc9073Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Court dismissed the Department's appeal saying that no question of law arose from the order of the Tribunal affirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing relief to the assessee, and the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the effect that there was no adverse comment from the stock ... 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 additionsWhile allowing relief to the assessee

Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), Nagpur vs. Shri Waman Mahadeorao Sarode, Nagpur

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

ITA 189/NAG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 147Section 148Section 250(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

against Tribunal order holding that in course of assessment, Assessing Officer made addition in respect of unaccounted investment made by assessee in immovable property - Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal concurrently came to conclusion that materials on record did not establish any such unaccounted investments Accordingly, addition made by Assessing Officer

Chandra Gupta Basetty, Mancherial vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Manchirial

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

ITA 843/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.843/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Chandra Gupta Basetty Income Tax Officer Mancherial Vs. Ward-1 Mancherial [Pan : Aenpb6195G] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By : Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, Ar राजस्‍व द्वारा/Revenue By : Shri Kumaran Ram, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 24/09/2024 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M: Aggrieved By The Order Dated 28/03/2024 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Learned Cit(A)”), In The Case Of Chandra Gupta Basetty (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18, The Assessee Preferred This Appeal With A Delay Of 95 Days. 2. At The Outset Learned Ar Submits That The Learned Cit(A) Recorded That So Many Notices Were Issued & Because Of The Nonappearance Of The Assessee He Proceeded Ex-Parte & Dismissed The Appeal In Limine. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit & Submitted That The He Filed An Appeal Before The Learned Cit(A) Against The Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumaran Ram, DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

evidence to substantiate the grounds raised. 5. 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

Guthikonda Pradeep Kumar Reddy, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 825/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.825/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Guthikonda Pradeep Income Tax Officer Kumar Reddy Vs. Ward-9(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Anrpg7345N] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By : Mohd.Afzal, Ar राजस्‍व द्वारा/Revenue By : Shri Kumaran Ram, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/09/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 24/09/2024 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M: Aggrieved By The Order Dated 17/03/2024 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Learned Cit(A)”), In The Case Of Guthikonda Pradeep Kumar Reddy (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18, The Assessee Preferred This Appeal With A Delay Of 465 Days. 2. At The Outset, Assessee Brought To My Notice That In Form No.35, The Assessee Requested Not To Communicate The Notices By Email By Specifically Noting So, But Inspite Of The Same, The Learned Cit(A) Sent The Notices To The Email Of The Assessee, Therefore, Miscommunication Happened & The Mail Sent By The Learned Cit(A) Escaped The Attention Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: Mohd.Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumaran Ram, DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

issues, grounds urged and the merits thereon. 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

Sri Shiridi Sai Educational Society, Warangal vs. ITO., Ward-1, Warangal

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

ITA 703/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.703/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Sri Shiridi Sai Educational Ito, Ward-1 Society Vs. Warangal Warangal [Pan :Aanas9875P] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ranjan Agarwala, DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

Jitendra Vallabhdas Sanghavi, Ghatkopar East vs. Commisioner of Income Tax Circle 27(1) Mumbai, Vashi Station Complex

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

ITA 2793/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Jitendra Vallabhdas Sanghavi, Commissioner Of Income 13, Marwadi Chawl, M.G. Road, Tax, Circle 27(1), ‘ Vs. Ghatkopar East, Mumbai Mumbai – 400077 (Pan : Azdps2873H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : None Revenue : Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57

inquiry as he thinks fit, or may direct the Assessing officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to the Commissioner (Appeals). Further, sub-section (6) provides that the CIT(A) shall pass an order in writing and shall set the points for determination, the decision

Prakash Govindbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 163/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT D.R. & Shri Rignesh

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

Trib.)where it was held that where cash deposited in bank account of assessee was treated as unexplained cash credit by Assessing Officer but Commissioner (Appeals) having found that money withdrawn by assessee from bank account might be available for subsequent deposit, directed Assessing Officer to take only peak credit ... there was no infirmity in order of Commissioner (Appeals). In the case of C. Vamsi Mohan v. ITO ITA.No.469/Hyd/2014the ITAT held that said withdrawal having been made by the assessee just before a week, the same can reasonably be treated as available with the assessee for cash deposit especially

Prakash Govindbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 162/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT D.R. & Shri Rignesh

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

Prakash Govindbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 161/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT D.R. & Shri Rignesh

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69A