“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)

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Hassan, Hassan vs. Ramachandra Setty and Songs, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1164/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Income Tax Officer, W-1, Hassan vs. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1163/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

M/S. S. Ramashandra Setty & Sons, Hassan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1156/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Gouri Madan, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi

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

ITA 2816/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Gouri Madan, Vs Ito, 19/14, East Punjabi Bagh, Ward-44(6), New Delhi-110026 New Delhi. Pan-Aospm7266A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Gouri Madan, Vs Acit, 19/14, East Punjabi Bagh, Central Circle-17, New Delhi-110026 New Delhi. Pan-Aospm7266A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ashok Khandelwal, Ca & Shri Akash Khandelwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.06.2024

Section 132

assessee in the Assessment Year 2017-18 in ITA No.2816/Del/2022. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the order of Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is contrary to the law and the facts of the present case. 2. That order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is contrary ... facts of the case, and bad in law as Ld. Commissioner (appeals) confirmed penalty imposed by the AO of Rs.17,71,260/- u/s 271AAB(1)(c) . 3. The appellant craves leave to add to or amend the aforesaid grounds before disposal of the appeal.” 14. The present appeal filed

Intarvo Technologies .Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-12(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed with consequence to follow as above

ITA 3588/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Intarvo Technologies Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Ward 12(2), Regency Tower, C-69, New Delhi Sec.58, Noida (Up) Pin: 201 307 Pan: Aabcr7753B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 58

addition was made of Rs.2,54,310 under Section 36(1)(ii) of the Act for interest free loans without business expediency. 6. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) had partly allowed the appeal of assessee for which assessee is in appeal before us challenging the addition sustained on account of advances ... supplier written off and inventory written off and further the sustenance of disallowance of interest cost. 7. Appreciating the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), we find that assessee failed to Exhibit any business purposes were served by way of extending the interest free advances and on that account, the disallowance

Manak Garg, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 59(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3498/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11 Manak Garg (Individual), Vs. Ito, Ward 59(1), F-17, West Vinod Nagar, New Delhi Delhi-1100 92 Pan: Aaccn8595N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 80C

these entries were not supported by further evidences by way of bills or vouchers etc. Thus, the reasons for sustaining the additions by learned Commissioner (Appeals) require no evidences. In fact, learned Commissioner (Appeals) observes specifically inspite of giving opportunity to file additional evidences, same were not filed. There ... error in the findings of learned Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal of assessee is dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10 /06/2024. (G.S. PANNU) ( ANUBHAV SHARMA) VICE-PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 10th June, 2024. Mohan

DCIT-CC-4(2), Mumbai vs. Rubberwala Realty, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to

ITA 3531/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: We Advert To The Grounds Taken In The Cross Appeals, It Would First Be Relevant To Cull Out The Basic Facts Of The Case & Effect Of Law In Brief In Respect Of Certain Ays. Search U/S 132 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Was Conducted Against The Rubberwala Group, On 17-03-2021 Thereby Triggering Section 153A Of The Act. Prior To The Date Of Search, The Income-Tax Assessments For Ays 2015-16 To 2019-20 Were Either Completed U/S 143(1)/143(3) Of The Act And/Or The Time Limit For Issue Of Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Had Expired. Accordingly, The Income-Tax 3

For Respondent: Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

President Industries (258 ITR 654). "3. Having perused the assessment order made by the Assessing Officer, the order made by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, we are satisfied that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application under section 256(1). It cannot be a matter of an argument

DCIT-CC-4(2), Mumbai vs. Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed and

ITA 3508/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3448/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3447/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3446/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3445/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3444/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3459/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3432/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd. Ground Floor, Rubberwala House, Dr. A Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. बनाम / Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3508/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3505/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3504/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3549/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3503/Mum/2023

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain FCAFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

Hilton Infrastructure, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14, 2014-

ITA 3455/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM

Hilton Infrastrucutre, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14, 2014-

ITA 3454/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM

Hilton Infrastructure, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14, 2014-

ITA 3452/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM

Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed and

ITA 3448/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain FCAFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpa

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68Section 69ASection 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JM

DCIT Circle-19(1), New Delhi vs. Patanjali Ayurved Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 429/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 142Section 143(3)

PCCIT. The powers u/s 144A are to be exercised by the Joint Commissioner or Additional Commissioner. The powers u/s 251 are specific to the Commissioner (Appeals). Similarly, the powers u/s 263 and 264 are to be exercised by the PCIT/CIT. Further, in exercise of the powers conferred under clause

Ratnaveni Yeluri, Nizamabad vs. ITO., Ward-2, Nizamabad

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

ITA 482/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 482/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ratnaveni Yeluri, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bodhan Ward-2, [Pan No. Acopy5575A] Nizamabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Kumaran, DR

Section 250Section 250(6)

considered or giving any reasons thereunder. 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

Kishore Singh Rajpurohit, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-7(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 369/HYD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Kumaran, DR

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

addition made by the learned Assessing Officer. 7. Requirement of law under section 250 (6) of the Act is that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision

Mohammed Ragivus Sebtain, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(4), Hyderabd

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

ITA 334/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri R. Kumaran, DR

Section 250Section 250(6)

merits, instead of dismissing the same. 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

Mewat Grit Udyog (Since Dissolved) Through Its Successor Nkb Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Rewari, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Rewari, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 372/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234CSection 254Section 263Section 40

crores paid by the assessee during the financial year 2012-13. As a result, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.” 25. The question here is not claiming any deduction or exemption, simply the refund

Dilip Hiralal Chaudhari, Nandurbar vs. ITO, Ward, Dhule

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

ITA 642/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi

Section 142(1)Section 249(4)(b)Section 44A

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

Himalaya Distilleries Ltd., Sikkim vs. ITO, WD-3(1), Gangtok, Sikkim

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 758/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 757 & 758/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Himalaya Distilleries Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3(1), Majitar Vs Gangtok Rangpo – 737136 [East Sikkim] [Pan : Aacch6217P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somanth Ghosh, A/R Revenue By : Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/06/2024 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)”) Evenly Dt. 29/05/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) For Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2. As The Issues Raised In Both These Appeals Of The Assessee Are Common, They Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. Perusal Of The Grounds Of Appeal Indicate That Apart From The Grounds Raised On Merit, A Common Legal Ground Has Been Raised Challenging The Validity Of The Re-Assessment Proceedings On Account Of Wrong Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act & That The Re-

For Appellant: Shri Somanth Ghosh, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 10Section 147Section 148Section 250

patently wrong for the purposes of assuming jurisdiction for issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act and the impugned finding of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in upholding the validity of such notice issued is absolutely contrary to the settled position in law. The ld. D/R also failed to controvert

Himalaya Distilleries Ltd., Sikim vs. ITO, WD-3(1), Gangtok, Sikim

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 757/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Somanth Ghosh, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 10Section 147Section 148Section 250