← 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)

Balasubramaniam Palaniappan, Erode vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Erode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1398/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1398/Chny/2023. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Balasubramaniam Palaniappan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.10, Narayanasamy Street, Ward 1(5) N.G.G.O. Colony, Surampatti, Erode. Erode 638 009. [Pan: Aljpp 2779F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234CSection 44ASection 69A

Ward 1(5), Erode vide order dated 29.08.2019. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- ‘’1. The Order of the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) is unfair, illegal and invalid. 2. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not considering the factual matrix, the nature of business carried ... submissions made during the course of the appeal proceeding. 3. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing grounds of appeal, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in making resort to Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act and computing Business Income at Eight Percent, when the Gross Receipts, as taken

Aban Singapore Pte Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Intl Tax 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1329/CHNY/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1329/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 2. Stay Application No.9/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.1329/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22) M/S. Aban Singapore Pte. Limited Dcit बनाम/ 113, Pantheon Road, Egmore S.O International Taxation-1(1), Vs. Egmore, Chennai-600 008. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaqca-2845-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (Ca)-Ld. Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/ Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-04-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17-05-2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 28Section 40Section 44ASection 44B

subjected to Indian taxation, the question of deducting any tax from the hire charges payable to NR did not arise. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) cancelling this order of the Assessing Officer was, therefore, upheld." 7. Having heard and examined the case and. basing on the judgements

M/S Ruby Realty Pvt. Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 967/CHNY/2022[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.966/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.967/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) M/S. Ruby Realty Private Limited Dcit बनाम/ No. B-908, Radiance Shine Apts, Central Circle-3(4), Vs. Chennai-34. Kazhipattur, Omr, Chennai-600 103. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcr-2832-B (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 132Section 153C

First, we take up appeal for AY 2007-08 wherein the grounds taken by the assessee read as under: - 1. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is erroneous both in law and on facts. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to see that the Assessing Officer must be in possession ... Assessing Officer had no material in his possession to suggest seizure of any incriminating material to even assume jurisdiction u/s 153C. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in ignoring the fact that the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 153C despite being aware that the document seized during search had no bearing

M/S Ruby Realty Pvt. Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 966/CHNY/2022[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.966/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.967/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) M/S. Ruby Realty Private Limited Dcit बनाम/ No. B-908, Radiance Shine Apts, Central Circle-3(4), Vs. Chennai-34. Kazhipattur, Omr, Chennai-600 103. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcr-2832-B (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 132Section 153C

First, we take up appeal for AY 2007-08 wherein the grounds taken by the assessee read as under: - 1. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is erroneous both in law and on facts. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to see that the Assessing Officer must be in possession ... Assessing Officer had no material in his possession to suggest seizure of any incriminating material to even assume jurisdiction u/s 153C. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in ignoring the fact that the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 153C despite being aware that the document seized during search had no bearing

M/S. Jayam Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1061/CHNY/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1061/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) M/S. Jayam Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ No.B-908, Radiance Shine Apartments, Central Circle-3(4), Vs. Chennai-34. Kazhipattur, Omr, Chennai-600 103. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcj-4327-R (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथPकीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (Ca)-Ld. Ar TuथPकीओरसे/ Respondent By : Smt. Komali Krishna (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-02-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17-05-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 153C

153C r.w.s 153A of the Act dated 27.03.2014. The grounds taken by the assessee read as under: 1. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is erroneous both in law and on facts. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to see that mere possession of documents pertaining to the Assessee will ... that the seized material is incriminating and has bearing on the determination of total income of the Assessee for any particular year. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to see that the Assessing Officer must be in possession of incriminating evidence gathered during search in order to invoke the provisions

ACIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai vs. M Sukumar Reddy, Chennai

ITA 71/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.69/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.70/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.71/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit Shri M. Sukumar Reddy बनाम 3Rd, 6A, Rajparis, Aishwarya, Central Circle-3(4) Chennai. Raj Apartment, Ranjeeth Road, / Vs. Kotturpuram, Chennai-600 085. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adzpm-1863-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.24/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.69/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 5. Cross Objection No.25/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.70/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 6. Cross Objection No.26/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.71/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 132Section 153A

aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 1.3 The grounds of assessee’s cross-objection read as under 1. The Commissioner (Appeals) overlooked the fact that since the search u/s 132 had been initiated in the case on 21-6-2011, the assessment for the year ... evidenced by a seized document is sine qua non for making additions in the assessment u/s 153A in respect of unabated assessments. 3. The commissioner (Appeals) failed to see that the Assessing Officer did not have any adverse material seized from the assessee in the course of search

ACIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai vs. M Sukumar Reddy, Chennai

ITA 70/CHNY/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.69/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.70/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.71/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit Shri M. Sukumar Reddy बनाम 3Rd, 6A, Rajparis, Aishwarya, Central Circle-3(4) Chennai. Raj Apartment, Ranjeeth Road, / Vs. Kotturpuram, Chennai-600 085. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adzpm-1863-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.24/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.69/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 5. Cross Objection No.25/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.70/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 6. Cross Objection No.26/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.71/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 132Section 153A

aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 1.3 The grounds of assessee’s cross-objection read as under 1. The Commissioner (Appeals) overlooked the fact that since the search u/s 132 had been initiated in the case on 21-6-2011, the assessment for the year ... evidenced by a seized document is sine qua non for making additions in the assessment u/s 153A in respect of unabated assessments. 3. The commissioner (Appeals) failed to see that the Assessing Officer did not have any adverse material seized from the assessee in the course of search

ACIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai vs. M Sukumar Reddy, Chennai

ITA 69/CHNY/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.69/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.70/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.71/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit Shri M. Sukumar Reddy बनाम 3Rd, 6A, Rajparis, Aishwarya, Central Circle-3(4) Chennai. Raj Apartment, Ranjeeth Road, / Vs. Kotturpuram, Chennai-600 085. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adzpm-1863-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.24/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.69/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 5. Cross Objection No.25/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.70/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 6. Cross Objection No.26/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.71/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 132Section 153A

aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 1.3 The grounds of assessee’s cross-objection read as under 1. The Commissioner (Appeals) overlooked the fact that since the search u/s 132 had been initiated in the case on 21-6-2011, the assessment for the year ... evidenced by a seized document is sine qua non for making additions in the assessment u/s 153A in respect of unabated assessments. 3. The commissioner (Appeals) failed to see that the Assessing Officer did not have any adverse material seized from the assessee in the course of search

Plantium Holding P Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle III(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 3436/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3436/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S Platinum Holdings Private Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ No.2/1, Abu Garden, Omr Road, Central Circle-3(4) Vs. Navalur, Chennai-600 103. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcp-8781-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (Ca)-Ld. Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/ Respondent By : Smt. Komali Krishna (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-02-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17-05-2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 132Section 153A

assessee read as under: 1. The order of the CIT(A) is bad in law and on facts of the case. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) overlooked the fact that since the search u/s 132 had been initiated in the case on 21-6-2011, the assessment for the assessment year ... year could be made only on the basis of incriminating document seized in the course of search of the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, confirmed the additions not on the basis of any document seized but by relying on uncorroborated material collected from sources unconnected to the search