← 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)

Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 463/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 153ASection 69B

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of (Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further ... held that purchases made by assessee was acceptable and disallowance was to be deleted - Tribunal dismissed revenue's appeal - High Court affirmed judgments of Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal being concurrent factual findings - Whether no substantial question of law arose from impugned order of Tribunal - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour

M/S. Emirates Hindustan Builders and Developers, Kerala vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 415/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Guru Kumar S., D.R
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of (Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further ... held that purchases made by assessee was acceptable and disallowance was to be deleted - Tribunal dismissed revenue's appeal - High Court affirmed judgments of Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal being concurrent factual findings - Whether no substantial question of law arose from impugned order of Tribunal - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour

Mkh Infrastructure, Kerala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 174/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Guru Kumar S., D.R
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of (Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further ... held that purchases made by assessee was acceptable and disallowance was to be deleted - Tribunal dismissed revenue's appeal - High Court affirmed judgments of Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal being concurrent factual findings - Whether no substantial question of law arose from impugned order of Tribunal - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour

Darpan Kanubhai Shah, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 123/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 123/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Darpan Kanubhai Shah The Income-Tax Officer, C/O. Darpan Travels, Vs. Ward-3(1)(4), Near Ramji Mandir, Vadodara Madanzampa Road, Vadodara-390001 Pan : Agips 3405 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Samir Parikh, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 22.11.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under :- “(1) The Learned Cit(Appeal) Is Not Correct In Holding That The Assessee Has Not Filed Return Of Income U/S 148. Consequently The Learned Cit (Appeal) Is Not Correct That The Appeal Is Not Liable To Be Admitted. (Ii) Alternatively Appeal Is Allowed By Set Aside The Order & Matter Referred Back To The Desk Of Hon. Cit For Reconsideration. Darpan Kanubhai Shah Vs. Ito Ay : 2018-19 2

For Appellant: Shri Samir Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 54B

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

Income-Tax Officer 41(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Ajit Sakharam Chavan, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1921/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: ShriManoj Kumar Sinha (SR.DR.)
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

filed as additional evidence. Quick look on the section 250(4) of the Act. “Procedure in appeal. 250 (4) The 46[***] 47[Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the]48[Commissioner (Appeals)] 50may, before disposing of any appeal, make such further inquiry as he thinks fit, or may direct the 49[Assessing ... Officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to the 46[***] 47[Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the]48[Commissioner (Appeals)].” Relatedto the dispose of the additional evidence quick look of Rule 46A of the Rule:- “Rule 46A. Production of additional evidence before the [Joint Commissioner] (Appeals

Income-Tax Officer 41(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Ajit Sakharam Chavan, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1920/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: ShriManoj Kumar Sinha (SR.DR.)
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

filed as additional evidence. Quick look on the section 250(4) of the Act. “Procedure in appeal. 250 (4) The 46[***] 47[Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the]48[Commissioner (Appeals)] 50may, before disposing of any appeal, make such further inquiry as he thinks fit, or may direct the 49[Assessing ... Officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to the 46[***] 47[Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the]48[Commissioner (Appeals)].” Relatedto the dispose of the additional evidence quick look of Rule 46A of the Rule:- “Rule 46A. Production of additional evidence before the [Joint Commissioner] (Appeals

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tpg Capital India P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 3132/Mum/2019is

ITA 3283/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Mr. Porus F Kaka / Mr. Manish KanthFor Respondent: Ms. Dhivya Ruth J (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 250Section 92C(3)

discussed earlier, this company was introduced by the Transfer Pricing Officer as a fresh comparable by the despite theobjection of the assessee. However, learned Commissioner (Appeals)having found that the company is engaged in the business ofinvestment / merchant banking has excluded it as a comparable. 27. We have considered rival ... excluded as a comparable. Therefore, consistent with the view expressed in the judicial pronouncements cited before us, we uphold the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in excluding this company as a comparable. Grounds raised are dismissed." The Ld.AR prayed to delete this comparable from the list of comparables. LCAPL

Jotindra Steel and Tubes Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi

Accordingly, the second issue of AY 2017-18 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3805/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.3803 To 3805/Del/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Jotindra Steel & Tubes Ltd., Vs Acit, 602, Chiranjiv Tower, Central Circle-3, 43, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 019. Pan: Aaacj1872C

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Parul Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 156

appeal before the CIT(A) do not lie. In the list of appealable order u/s 246 and in the list of appealable orders before Commissioner (Appeals) u/s 246A of the Act, there is no mention of recovery proceedings order. Thus, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the undersigned ... According to the provisions of Section 246A of the Act any assessee who is aggrieved by 'Specified orders' may appeal to the Commissioner Appeal. Therefore, the basic condition to section 246A pre supposes that there has to be an order listed in Section 246A (1) of the Act. There

Jotindra Steel and Tubes Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi

Accordingly, the second issue of AY 2017-18 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3804/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.3803 To 3805/Del/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Jotindra Steel & Tubes Ltd., Vs Acit, 602, Chiranjiv Tower, Central Circle-3, 43, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 019. Pan: Aaacj1872C

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Parul Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 156

appeal before the CIT(A) do not lie. In the list of appealable order u/s 246 and in the list of appealable orders before Commissioner (Appeals) u/s 246A of the Act, there is no mention of recovery proceedings order. Thus, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the undersigned ... According to the provisions of Section 246A of the Act any assessee who is aggrieved by 'Specified orders' may appeal to the Commissioner Appeal. Therefore, the basic condition to section 246A pre supposes that there has to be an order listed in Section 246A (1) of the Act. There

Jotindra Steel and Tubes Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, New Delhi

Accordingly, the second issue of AY 2017-18 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3803/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.3803 To 3805/Del/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Jotindra Steel & Tubes Ltd., Vs Acit, 602, Chiranjiv Tower, Central Circle-3, 43, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 019. Pan: Aaacj1872C

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Parul Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 156

appeal before the CIT(A) do not lie. In the list of appealable order u/s 246 and in the list of appealable orders before Commissioner (Appeals) u/s 246A of the Act, there is no mention of recovery proceedings order. Thus, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the undersigned ... According to the provisions of Section 246A of the Act any assessee who is aggrieved by 'Specified orders' may appeal to the Commissioner Appeal. Therefore, the basic condition to section 246A pre supposes that there has to be an order listed in Section 246A (1) of the Act. There

Kuldeep Sood, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1745/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Satyan Sethi &For Respondent: Ms Parul Singh, Sr. DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 27I

favours the assessee, more particularly where the provisions relate to the imposition of penalty. In view of the above, the penalty sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals) was cancelled.” 8. After taking into consideration the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that ld. tax authorities below have fallen

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Sandeep Ramesh Shah, Mumbai

In the result, we dismiss both the appeal of the assessee as well of Revenue

ITA 251/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer- Vs. Sandeep Ramesh Shah 19(3)(1), Piramal Reshmo Mac Tools Centre Chamber, Room No.405, 2/10, Summit House, Lalbaug Forjett Hill Road, Opp Mumbai – 400 012 Bhatia Hospital, Mumbai – 400036 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aafps2666B Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

addition made on account of bogus purchases to be P a g e | 5 ITO-19(3)(1) Vs. Sandeep Ramesh Shah deleted. The Commissioner (Appeals) also observed that the Assessing Officer had not made available any evidence to show that the money which was given by cheques to such

Parry Infrastructure Co P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1653/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Philip George, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Assistant Commissioner shall 251 (1) In disposing of an appeal, the fix a day and place for hearing of the Commissioner (Appeals) shall have the appeal, and may from time to time following powers- adjourn the hearing. a) in an appeal against an order of (2) The Assistant Commissioner ... thinks fit. such order: Provided that the Assistant Commissioner shall not enhance an assessment unless the appellant has had a 2) The Commissioner (Appeals) shall not reasonable opportunity of showing cause enhance an assessment or a penalty or against such enhancement. reduce the amount of refund unless the appellant

Madan Lal Jain, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 4(2), Jaipur

In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal of the

ITA 717/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144(3)Section 69C

compel him to 9 Madan Lal Jain vs. ITO produce desired details. For ready reference, section 250(4) is reproduced hereunder: “The Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) may, before disposing of any appeal, make such further inquiry as he thinks fit, or may direct the Assessing Officer ... make further inquiry and report the result of the same to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals).” It was duty of ld CIT(A) to verify the facts. Not discharging his obligations and still rejecting the evidences and explanations is blatantly illegal. The appeal of the appellant deserves

M/S. Mukka Proteins Limited (Formerly Know As Mukka Sea Food Industries Ltd., Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

ITA 434/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

ITA Nos.431 to 435/Bang/2024 M/s. Mukka Proteins Limited, Mangaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI

M/S. Mukka Proteins Limited (Formerly Know As Mukka Sea Food Industries Ltd., Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 431/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

Held, dismissing the appeal, that the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal was based on concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal. It was not the case of the Revenue that the Tribunal had taken into account any irrelevant material or that ... this Court while deciding the said issue has held as under: “Thus, it is apparent that both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal have concurrently accepted the finding of the Assessing Officer that the apparent sellers who had issued sale bills were not traceable. That goods were received from

ITO(E), Vadodara, Race Ciurse Vadodara vs. Takshshila Foundation(Ngo), Karelibaugh, Vadodara

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 118/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Jul 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member & Co No.8/Ahd/2024 (In Ita No.118/Ahd/2024 – By Assessee) Assessment Year : 2022-23 The Income Tax Officer (E) Takshshila Foundation (Ngo) (Ward) Vs B/15, Suhas Society Race Course Harni Road Vadodara 390 007 Karelibaug, Vadodara – 390 018 (Gujarat) Pan:Aaatt 5363 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent & Cross Objector) Assessee By : Shri D.K. Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Arises From The Order Of The Office Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit (A)–6, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Dated 08-12-2023, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23 Against The Intimation/Order Passed U/S. 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short) By Cpc, Bengaluru & The Assessee Is In Cross Objection Thereof.

For Appellant: Shri D.K. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Calcutta bench of the Tribunal held that the Audit Report can even be filed at the time of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). (iii) On a similar issue the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Nagpur Hotel Owners Association [2001] 114 Taxman 255 (SC) held

Sundip Kumar Gupta., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-47, Kolkata.

Appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1173/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.1170 To1173/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Sundip Kumar Gupta..…………………....................…...……………....Appellant Fort Oasis Complex, Flat No.040903, Block-436B, Panditya Road, Kolkata – 700029. [Pan: Aebpg7187B] Vs. Dcit, Circle-47, Kolkata…….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 02, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Bunch Of Four Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 06.09.2023, 06.09.2023, 15.09.2023 & 06.09.2023, Respectively, Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical, Hence, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. At The Request Of Ld. Representatives Of The Parties, Ita No.1170/Kol/2023 Is Taken As The Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts.

Section 147Section 250Section 68

relevant Act is markedly different. The order passed by the Assessing Officer was utterly perverse and had been rightly set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal had rightly deleted the additions under section 68." 9. As noted earlier, the loan was repaid in 2014-15 and, therefore, the allegation

Sundip Kumar Gupta., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-47, Kolkata.

Appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1172/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.1170 To1173/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Sundip Kumar Gupta..…………………....................…...……………....Appellant Fort Oasis Complex, Flat No.040903, Block-436B, Panditya Road, Kolkata – 700029. [Pan: Aebpg7187B] Vs. Dcit, Circle-47, Kolkata…….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 02, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Bunch Of Four Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 06.09.2023, 06.09.2023, 15.09.2023 & 06.09.2023, Respectively, Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical, Hence, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. At The Request Of Ld. Representatives Of The Parties, Ita No.1170/Kol/2023 Is Taken As The Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts.

Section 147Section 250Section 68

relevant Act is markedly different. The order passed by the Assessing Officer was utterly perverse and had been rightly set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal had rightly deleted the additions under section 68." 9. As noted earlier, the loan was repaid in 2014-15 and, therefore, the allegation

Sundip Kumar Gupta., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-47, Kolkata.

Appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1171/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.1170 To1173/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Sundip Kumar Gupta..…………………....................…...……………....Appellant Fort Oasis Complex, Flat No.040903, Block-436B, Panditya Road, Kolkata – 700029. [Pan: Aebpg7187B] Vs. Dcit, Circle-47, Kolkata…….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 02, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Bunch Of Four Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 06.09.2023, 06.09.2023, 15.09.2023 & 06.09.2023, Respectively, Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical, Hence, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. At The Request Of Ld. Representatives Of The Parties, Ita No.1170/Kol/2023 Is Taken As The Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts.

Section 147Section 250Section 68

relevant Act is markedly different. The order passed by the Assessing Officer was utterly perverse and had been rightly set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal had rightly deleted the additions under section 68." 9. As noted earlier, the loan was repaid in 2014-15 and, therefore, the allegation