“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)

Laxmi Narayan Residency D Co. Op Hsg Soc Ltd, Thane vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhrilaxmi Narayan Residency D Vs. Assistant Director Of Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Income-Tax Cpc, Plot No. 189, 190, 191, Bengaluru/Ito Ward(1)1, Village Majjwada, Gokhale Road, Thane Pokhran Road No. 2, Unnati Garden, 3, Thane (W.)-400610 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaal7961N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bharat GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Pasale

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(19)Section 250Section 7Section 70Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

facts of the present case. Therefore, there is no merits in the aforesaid reasoning adopted by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) in denying deduction under section 80P(2) (d) to the assessee. [Para 11] As regards the claim of deduction under section ... assessee in respect of interest income earned from investment with Co-operative Banks. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 2018-19 is set aside. As a result, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. [Para 14]” 7. Respectfully following the decisions

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (E)-2(1), Mumbai vs. The Cathedral Vidya Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3292/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri. Ronak Doshi & Ms. Mahek SavlaFor Respondent: Shri. H. M. Bhatt

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(3)

rent of Rs.2.75 Crore to a Private limited company owned and managed by excluded person. The assessee urged the similar contention before ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The Id CIT(A) confirmed the order of assessing officer holding that during the course of submission it was disclosed by the representative ... free education to One student, however the details of the student was not furnished. For charging of the high amount of fee the. Id Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that no authentic data is provided. For payment of lease rent to the excluded person the Id. CIT(A) concluded that neither

Rama Garg, Sehore vs. DCIT-3(1), Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Rama Garg, Dcit-3(1), Gadhi Chok, Bhopal Chota Bazar, Vs. Nasrullaganj, Sehore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abcpg1140J Assessee By Shri R.K. Mangal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.06.2024

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

under this Act- (A) such person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) [or the [Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner] or to be false, or (B)such person offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate

Real Touch Multitrading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 4(3)(2), Aayakar Bhawan Mumbai

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

ITA 4414/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Saboo, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

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

Morarjee Textiles Limited, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4112/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

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) Morarjee Textiles Ltd., AY 2017-18 & 2014-15 provides that the CIT(A) shall pass an order in writing

Morarjee Textiles Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4111/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

Medical Pollution Control Committee, Kanpur vs. ACIT, Central-1(2)(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 77/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2017-18 Medical Pollution Control V. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Committee Income Tax 21E Block, Panki Circle 1(2)(1) Kanpur City 208020 Kanpur Pan:Aaaac3243Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25 06 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 06 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 250(6)Section 251(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

after discussing in detail, his reasons for agreeing with the assessment order. 5. As per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, the Commissioner (Appeals) was obliged to dispose of the appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and to then pass an order on each ... points which arose for consideration; and the Commissioner (Appeals) was further obliged to state the reason for his/her decision on each such points which arose for determination. The Commissioner (Appeals) is duty-bound to dispose of the appeal through a speaking order on merits, on all the points which arose

Mariyappan Dhanalakshmi, Kumbakonam, Tamil Nadu vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Trichy

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

ITA 1558/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1557 & 1558/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 V. Mariyappan Dhanalakshmi, The Acit, 31, Chakrapani South Street, Circle-2(1), Kumbakonam-612 001. Trichy.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Krishnan Ramaswamy

Section 133ASection 194C(6)

favour of the asses-see. 5. The appeals are allowed. The order under challenge is set aside. The assessment order, that of the Commissioner (Appeals) and of the Tribunal are also set aside. The matter shall now be remanded to the assessing authority for fresh consideration, as aforestated. No order

Mariyappan Dhanalakshmi, Kumbakonam, Tamil Nadu vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), Trichy, Tamil Nadu

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

ITA 1557/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Krishnan Ramaswamy

Section 133ASection 194C(6)

Pushpendra Singh Chouhan, Sehore vs. ITO-Sehore, Sehore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 122/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Pushpendra Singh Ito Chouhan, Sehore C/O Adv.Hitesh Chimnani, Ug-37 Trade Centre, Vs. 18 South Tukoganj, Near Hotel Crown Palace, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cggps1953Q Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ms. Komal Wadhwani & Komal Kataria, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024 O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

payable by him: Provided that, in a case falling under clause (b) and on an application made by the appellant in this behalf, 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 clause

DCIT (Central), Bhopal vs. Shailendra Sharma, Bhopal

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

ITA 305/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 142(1)Section 153A

brought before by way of an appeal either by the assessee who is substantially assessed. The course of action adopted by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was prima facile against low and therefore his order deserves to be set aside and so we set it aside. (iii). Hon'ble MP High

Krishnasamy Maruthupandian, Virudhunagar vs. ITO, Corp Ward 4, Madurai

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

ITA 863/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 863/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Krishnasamy The Income Tax Officer, Maruthupandian, Vs. Corporate Ward-4, D No.2/6/1531 Asari Colony, Madurai. 4Th Street, Satchiyapuram, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar – 626 124. Pan: Agzpm 0804B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Akash, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1058168632 (1) Dated 23.11.2023. The Assessment Was Framed By The Addl./Joint/Deputy/Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14 U/S.147 R.W.S.144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 19.03.2022. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Nfac Confirming The Action Of Ao In Adding The Credits In The Bank Account Amounting To Rs.7,72,83,031/- As Unexplained Money U/S.69A Of The Act By Holding That The Assessee’S Appeal Is Dismissed As Un-Admitted & Infructuous For The Reason That The Assessee Has Not Paid An Amount Equal To The Amount Of Advance Tax In Term Of Section 249(4)(B) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri G. Akash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

Tata International Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 7(3), Mumbai

ITA 2232/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Dhivya Ruth J., Ld. DR

Section 14Section 144CSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 57

capital borrowed by the Appellant for the purposes of its business was disallowable under Section 14-A of the Act. 1.4.7 The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in rejecting the Appellant's alternative claim to the effect that, if at all any amount was disallowable under Section

Bajaj Holdngs & Investment Ltd ( Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3043/MUM/2010[2002-013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2002-013

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

For Appellant: Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

detail manner. Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to exclude the scrap sale from the total turnover while computing the deduction under section 80HHC. Thus, ground no.18

Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2899/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2002-03

For Appellant: Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

Padmanaba Reddy Metukuru, Nellore vs. ITO., Ward-1, Nellore

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

ITA 107/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 250Section 250(6)

instead of dismissing the same in limine. 4. 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

Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 161/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R and Saurav Gupta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 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.” 14. We, therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down in the above case laws

Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 160/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R and Saurav Gupta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Jitendra Udaylal Jain, Maharashtra vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

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

ITA 4543/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

DCIT 3(4), Mumbai vs. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2477/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: S/Shri Porus F.Kaka & Manish KanthFor Respondent: Ms.Dhivya Ruth J, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)

parties in the course of hearing as well as in the written note, we are of the view that the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the aforesaid issues are unassailable. As regards the issue of appropriate PLI, we are of the view that considering the nature of activity performed ... risk. Rather the facts on record reveal that the AEs performed the role of risk bearing distributors. It is well brought out by learned Commissioner (Appeals) in his order that the AEs are bearing credit Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. risk and risk of default by client. In fact, the assessee