← 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)

Shekhar Narayan, Patna vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 355/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 13Section 194Section 194JSection 250Section 44A

together which would result into such relationship. [Para 9] It is further held that in that case, it has been categorically recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the contract for service implies a contract whereby one party undertakes to render services i.e. professional or technical services whereas contract of service ... taxmann.com 348 (Madras) it has been held that a speaking order on merits with reasons and findings is to be passed by Commissioner (Appeals) on basis of ground raised in assessee's appeal; he cannot dispose the assessee's appeal merely by holding that the Assessing Officer's order

Shekhar Narayan, Patna vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 354/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 13Section 194Section 194JSection 250Section 44A

together which would result into such relationship. [Para 9] It is further held that in that case, it has been categorically recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the contract for service implies a contract whereby one party undertakes to render services i.e. professional or technical services whereas contract of service ... taxmann.com 348 (Madras) it has been held that a speaking order on merits with reasons and findings is to be passed by Commissioner (Appeals) on basis of ground raised in assessee's appeal; he cannot dispose the assessee's appeal merely by holding that the Assessing Officer's order

Vijaykumar Hiralal Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Cirlcle 4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5491/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 115BSection 153CSection 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

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

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

ITA 5490/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 115BSection 153CSection 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

Anumita Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-4, Mumbai

ITA 2555/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 263

learned DR, the statutory framework provides a separate and specific appellate remedy to the assessee to challenge the reassessment proceedings before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), which the assessee has admittedly not availed.It was contended that if the assessee was aggrieved by the issuance of notice under section

Renew Wind Energy (Rajkot) Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 19(1), Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 4421/DEL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Krinwant Sahayrenew Wind Energy (Shivpur) Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, 138, Ansal Income Tax, Circle 19(1) Delhi Chambers, Bhikaji Cama Palace, Range Code-44, C. R. New Delhi Building, I. P. Estate, Pan: Aafcr4810H New Delhi Appellant Respondent Renew Wind Energy (Rajkot) Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited,138, Ansal Income Tax, Circle 19(1) Delhi Chambers, Bhikajicama Palace, Range Code-44, C. R. New Delhi Building, I. P. Estate, Pan: Aafcr4553H New Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Kashish Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 27/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

Wind Energy Vs. DCIT High Court under sub-section (2) of section 260A in the relevant case against the order of 29[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be. (2) The Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner shall, on receipt ... prescribed within a period of one hundred and twenty days from the date of receipt of the order of 29[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or of the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, stating that an appeal on the question of law arising

Renew Wind Energy (Shivpur) Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 19(1), Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 4238/DEL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Krinwant Sahayrenew Wind Energy (Shivpur) Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, 138, Ansal Income Tax, Circle 19(1) Delhi Chambers, Bhikaji Cama Palace, Range Code-44, C. R. New Delhi Building, I. P. Estate, Pan: Aafcr4810H New Delhi Appellant Respondent Renew Wind Energy (Rajkot) Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited,138, Ansal Income Tax, Circle 19(1) Delhi Chambers, Bhikajicama Palace, Range Code-44, C. R. New Delhi Building, I. P. Estate, Pan: Aafcr4553H New Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Kashish Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 27/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

Wind Energy Vs. DCIT High Court under sub-section (2) of section 260A in the relevant case against the order of 29[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be. (2) The Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner shall, on receipt ... prescribed within a period of one hundred and twenty days from the date of receipt of the order of 29[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or of the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, stating that an appeal on the question of law arising

Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 13(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 3953/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwaljohnson Matthey India P. Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Luthra & Luthra Law Income Tax, Circle 13(2) Office India, 103, Ashoka Estate, Spm Civic Centre, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacj2919A Appellant Respondent Johnson Matthey India P. Ltd. Vs National Faceless Appeal 5Th Floor, C/O Regus Business Centre, Income Tax Center, Gurgaon, Road, South Department West Delhi Pan: Aaacj2919A Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Sumit Mangal, Adv, Ms. Radhika Sharma, Adv& Ms. Soumya Pandey, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

DCIT High Court under sub-section (2) of section 260A in the relevant case against the order of 29[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be. (2) The Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner shall, on receipt of a communication from ... prescribed within a period of one hundred and twenty days from the date of receipt of the order of 29[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or of the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, stating that an appeal on the question of law arising

Johnson Matthey India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-13(2), New Delhi

ITA 2564/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

jurisdictional High Court under sub-section (2) of section 260A in the relevant case against the order of 22[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be. (2) The Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner shall, on receipt of a communication from ... prescribed within a period of one hundred and twenty days from the date of receipt of the order of 29[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or of the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, stating that an appeal on the question of law arising

Vatika Seven Elements Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 25(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1525/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2018-19]

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

jurisdictional High Court under sub-section (2) of section 260A in the relevant case against the order of 29[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be. (2) The Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner shall, on receipt of a communication from ... prescribed within a period of one hundred and twenty days from the date of receipt of the order of 29[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or of the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, stating that an appeal on the question of law arising

Itron India P.Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1235/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalitron India P. Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Flat No. 507, Income Tax, Circle 10(1), Bhikajicamabhawan, C. R. Building, New Delhi Bhikajicama Place, New Delhi Pan: Aabcs6575L Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh.Kashish Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

jurisdictional High Court under sub-section (2) of section 260A in the relevant case against the order of 29[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be. (2) The Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner shall, on receipt of a communication from ... prescribed within a period of one hundred and twenty days from the date of receipt of the order of 29[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or of the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, stating that an appeal on the question of law arising

Ls Cable India P.Ltd., Rewari vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-5, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 4665/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144CSection 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

jurisdictional High Court under sub-section (2) of section 260A in the relevant case against the order of 29[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be. (2) The Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner shall, on receipt of a communication from ... prescribed within a period of one hundred and twenty days from the date of receipt of the order of 29[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or of the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, stating that an appeal on the question of law arising

Ls Cable India Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1961/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144CSection 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

jurisdictional High Court under sub-section (2) of section 260A in the relevant case against the order of 29[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be. (2) The Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner shall, on receipt of a communication from ... prescribed within a period of one hundred and twenty days from the date of receipt of the order of 29[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or of the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, stating that an appeal on the question of law arising

Hemendra Kumar Menaria, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Udaipur

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 769/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

Section 249(4)(b)Section 271A(1)

observing vide para 8 as under: “In the present case, the assessee had not only before the Tribunal but had also stated before the Commissioner (Appeals) that he had no taxable income, therefore, in absence of any obligation cast upon the assessee to compute/pay ‘advance tax’ under sections ... file of CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to dispose off the appeal after considering the merits of the case. Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall in course of the set aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 5. Since in the quantum appeal, the order

Hemendra Kumar Menaria, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Udaipur

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 768/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

Section 249(4)(b)Section 271A(1)

observing vide para 8 as under: “In the present case, the assessee had not only before the Tribunal but had also stated before the Commissioner (Appeals) that he had no taxable income, therefore, in absence of any obligation cast upon the assessee to compute/pay ‘advance tax’ under sections ... file of CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to dispose off the appeal after considering the merits of the case. Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall in course of the set aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 5. Since in the quantum appeal, the order

Hemendra Kumar Menaria, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Udaipur

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 767/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

Section 249(4)(b)Section 271A(1)

observing vide para 8 as under: “In the present case, the assessee had not only before the Tribunal but had also stated before the Commissioner (Appeals) that he had no taxable income, therefore, in absence of any obligation cast upon the assessee to compute/pay ‘advance tax’ under sections ... file of CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to dispose off the appeal after considering the merits of the case. Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall in course of the set aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 5. Since in the quantum appeal, the order

Hemendra Kumar Menaria, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Udaipur

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 766/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

Section 249(4)(b)Section 271A(1)

observing vide para 8 as under: “In the present case, the assessee had not only before the Tribunal but had also stated before the Commissioner (Appeals) that he had no taxable income, therefore, in absence of any obligation cast upon the assessee to compute/pay ‘advance tax’ under sections ... file of CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to dispose off the appeal after considering the merits of the case. Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall in course of the set aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 5. Since in the quantum appeal, the order

Harshad Himmatlal Rupani, Pune vs. ITO Ward 5(2), Pune

In the result the ground number 3 is allowed for Statistical

ITA 920/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.920/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Harshad Himmatlal Rupani, V The Income Tax Officer, 101/102, Ashoka Building, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Green Valley Housing Society, Wanwadi, Pune – 411040. Pan: Adopr6163Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Mahavir Jain Revenue By Smt Neha Thakur – (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 28/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2014-15 Dated 26.08.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 22.11.2016. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 41(1)

income and to be added under section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act. This issue has been dealt with by both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal relying upon the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. G.K. Patel &Co.[2013] 29 taxmann.com 248/212

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Golden Goenka Credit Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1799/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 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

Jayantilal Jesaram Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7459/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 153CSection 250Section 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