← 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)

Lords Inn Hotels and Developers Private Limited, Andheri West vs. DCIT, Central Circle -3(1), Nariman Point

ITA 3615/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav BansalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 44A

differs from Section 270A of the Act, the relevant extract of which reads as under: “270A. (1) The Assessing Officer or [the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, during the course of any proceedings under this Act, direct that any person

Allied Photographics India Limited, Churchgate vs. National Faceless Assessment Center, Delhi

ITA 3540/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra PoojaryFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 270ASection 274Section 32

provisions contained in Section 270A of the Act the relevant extract of which reads as under: “270A. (1) The Assessing Officer or [the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, during the course of any proceedings under this Act, direct that any person

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2)(1), Mumbai, Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate vs. Jsw Jaigarh Port Limited, Bandra(East)

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3345/MUM/2023[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit-5(2)(1), Jsw Jaigarh Port Ltd., 5Th Floor, R.N. 571, 5Th Floor, Jsw Centre, Bandra Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Churchgate, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabcj 7959 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rakesh Joshi Revenue By : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, DR

Production of additional evidence before the Deputy “46A. Production of additional evidence before the Deputy “46A. Production of additional evidence before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals). Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals). (1)The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the Deputy The appellant shall ... entitled to produce before the Deputy The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals), any evidence

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jsw Jaigarh Port Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3342/MUM/2023[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit-5(2)(1), Jsw Jaigarh Port Ltd., 5Th Floor, R.N. 571, 5Th Floor, Jsw Centre, Bandra Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Churchgate, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabcj 7959 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rakesh Joshi Revenue By : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, DR

Production of additional evidence before the Deputy “46A. Production of additional evidence before the Deputy “46A. Production of additional evidence before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals). Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals). (1)The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the Deputy The appellant shall ... entitled to produce before the Deputy The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals), any evidence

Chandra Shekar Reddy Lattupalli, Ranga Reddy District vs. ITO Ward-9(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 335/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 335/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Chandra Shekar Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer, Lattupalli, Ward-9(4), Manchal Mandal, Hyderabad Ranga Reddy Dist., [Pan No. Adcpl3436A] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Shukla, DR
Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

assessment order and dismissed the appeal. 6. 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

Balwinder Singh Bajwa, Sangrur vs. ITO, Ward, Sunam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dev Ahuja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

Counsel for the assessee fully supports this view. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of Id. Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting the additions made" 6.8 It was submitted that it is clear from the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi that once

Ashok Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result grounds of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 1882/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Ashok Kumar Gupta, Vs Dcit, C/O-Anil Jain Dd & Co., 611, Surya Central Circle-14, Kiran Building, 19 K.G.Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aaapg2240G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shivam Garg, Adv. & Shri Rahul Aggarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.04.2024

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(8)

270A of the Act is reproduced as under:- Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income. 270A. (1) “The Assessing Officer or28[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, during the course of any proceedings under this Act, direct that any person ... following, namely:— (a) the amount of income in respect of which the assessee offers an explanation and the Assessing Officer or29-30[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner, as the case may be, is satisfied that the explanation is bona fide

Satish Chand Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 211/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 145(3)Section 250Section 69A

Laxmi Trading Company Near Tonk Phatak Tonk Road, Jaipur 302015, Rajasthan PAN: ABTPG9248A for 2017-18 against the order dated 24/11/2023 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 . With reference to above it is humbly submitted as under:- 1. That above named ... heavy demand was raised against me. 3. That thereafter I enquired about it and came to know that this appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeal) on 24/11/2023. I further say that I did not receive any such order of dismissal of appeal from the ends of Income Tax Department

Surya Diam, Gujarat vs. ACIT CC -1(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 452/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, DR
Section 251(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL

M/S. Navkar India, Surat vs. ACIT CC -1(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Respondent: Mr. Suchek Anchaliya
Section 147Section 251(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL

Anil Kumar Poddar, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-43(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 260/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Subhro Das, Addl. CIT
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

general in nature. 4. The provisions of section 250(6) are reproduced as under: “250(6) – 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.” 4 Anil Kumar Poddar ... taxmann.com 348 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 assessee's appeal merely by holding that Assessing Officer's order is a self speaking

Laxmi Engineering Industries Private Limited, Bhopal vs. Income Tax Officer 2(4), Bhopal

ITA 428/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

assessee has filed these two appeals. 2. Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides “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.”. In the present

Laxmi Engineering Industries Private Limited, Bhopal vs. DCIT 2(1), Bhopal

ITA 427/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

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

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

assessee has filed these two appeals. 2. Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides “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.”. In the present

Shabina Ibrahim Pinto, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3, Udupi

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

ITA 381/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for department
Section 144

credit to the Cash withdrawals made by your Appellant prior to the deposit. Shabina Ibrahim Pinto, Bangalore Page 2 of 4 4. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in not issuing a physical notice before deciding the said appeal. 5. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in not giving proper ... opportunity to your Appellant before deciding the said appeal. 6. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider the Cash withdrawal of Rs.40,00,000/- on 31/August/2016 before dismissing the appeal. 7. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal without granting condonation of delay in filing the appeal

Gorakshan Sabha, Nagpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Mof, Goi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 92/NAG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.92 & 91/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2013-14 Gorakshan Sabha, The Income Tax Officer, Near Hitawada Press, V Ward Exemption, Nagpur. Wardha Road, Dhantoli, S Nagpur – 440012. Pan: Aaatg2927L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe - Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Act, Emanating From The Common Intimation Of Outstanding Demand Order For A.Y.2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since Facts Of Both Appeals Are Similar, We Take Up Appeal For A.Y.2014-15 As

Section 115VSection 115WSection 143Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 200ASection 206CSection 246ASection 250

which an appeal can be filed before the ld.CIT(A) mentioned in 246A is reproduced here as under : “Section 246A : Appealable orders before Commissioner (Appeals). 246A. (1) Any assessee or any deductor or any collector aggrieved by any of the following orders (whether made before or after the appointed ... appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against— (a) an order passed by a Joint Commissioner under clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of section 115VP or an order against the assessee where the assessee denies his liability to be assessed under this Act or an intimation under sub-section

Gorakshan Sabha, Nagpur, Wardha Road vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Mof, Goi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 91/NAG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.92 & 91/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2013-14 Gorakshan Sabha, The Income Tax Officer, Near Hitawada Press, V Ward Exemption, Nagpur. Wardha Road, Dhantoli, S Nagpur – 440012. Pan: Aaatg2927L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe - Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Act, Emanating From The Common Intimation Of Outstanding Demand Order For A.Y.2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since Facts Of Both Appeals Are Similar, We Take Up Appeal For A.Y.2014-15 As

Section 115VSection 115WSection 143Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 200ASection 206CSection 246ASection 250

which an appeal can be filed before the ld.CIT(A) mentioned in 246A is reproduced here as under : “Section 246A : Appealable orders before Commissioner (Appeals). 246A. (1) Any assessee or any deductor or any collector aggrieved by any of the following orders (whether made before or after the appointed ... appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against— (a) an order passed by a Joint Commissioner under clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of section 115VP or an order against the assessee where the assessee denies his liability to be assessed under this Act or an intimation under sub-section

Naresh Kencha, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Warangal

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

ITA 264/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 264/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Naresh Kencha, Income Tax Officer, Warangal Vs. Ward-1, [Pan: Azkpk8460D] Warangal

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ranjan Agarwala, DR
Section 250(6)

Requirement of law under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “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

J.M. Voith Se & Co. Kg (Earlier Voith Paper Gmbh & Co. Kg), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4862/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-Assessment Year: 2015-16 J.M. Voith Se & Co. Kg Versus Dcit, Circle 3(1)(1), (Earlier Voith Paper Gmbh & Co. International Taxation, Kg), C/O Mohinder Puri & Co., New Delhi. Cas, 1A-D, Vandhna, 11 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. Pan: Aadcv4876D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Rajan Bhatia, Adv. Sh. Ankit Nanda & Sh. Anuj Mathur, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr & Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.04.2024 Order

For Appellant: Sh. Rajan Bhatia, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR and Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 9(1)(i)

made addition of an amount of Rs.16,72,21,075/-. Against the assessment order so passed, the assessee preferred an appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). While deciding the appeal, learned Commissioner (Appeals), more or less, agreed with the decision of the 7 Assessing Officer. However, he reduced the profit ... justified in applying profit rate purely on estimate basis. 12. Learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals). Further, he submitted, the contract with security paper mill at Hoshangabad is a single contract and the assessee was given integrated work of design

Suresh Chand Singhal, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward 52(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3039/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad:Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 69A

National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) without giving proper opportunity of being heard. 3 3. Learned counsel for the assessee further submits that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-compliance of the notices dated 25.02.2021 and 08.02.2023 and without deciding the grounds on merits. Learned

Neeraj Gupta, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward -2(5) Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2953/DEL/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad:Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 250Section 48

Appeal Centre (NFAC) without providing reasonable opportunity of being 3 heard. Learned counsel further submits that the appeal was disposed of by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance to the notices issued by the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals), there is no any specific finding on merits