“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)

Express Publications (Madurai)Private Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-II(1), Chennai

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 730/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.730/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.737/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.754/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Express Publications (Madurai) Dcit P. Ltd. Corporate Circle-Ii(1) बनाम/ C/O. Sri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate Chennai. Vs. 384 (Old No.196) Lloyds Road, Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-0842-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1219/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S. Express Publications (Madurai) P. Corporate Circle-Ii(1) Ltd. बनाम/ Vs. Chennai C/O. Sri T.N.Seetharaman, Advocate 384 (Old No.196) Lloyds Road, Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-0842-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T.N. Seetharaman (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-03-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27-03-2024

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Seetharaman (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. DR

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

interest paid alleging diversion of interest bearing borrowals to the appellant's Group Companies invoking section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not taking proper note of the information I 2. clarification set out in the Grounds of Appeal and Written Submissions dt.07.07.2022 ... submitted that the said addition/ disallowance of Rs.96,49,6177- out of interest paid deserves to be deleted. Relaunch Expenses 4. The Commissioner (Appeals) NFAC erred in upholding the Assessing Officer's action in treating Rs.4,64,31,000/- described by the appellant as "Relaunch Expenses" as capital expenditure

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Express Publications(Madurai) Private Limited, Chennai

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1219/CHNY/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Seetharaman (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. DR

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

M/S. Bulk Liquid Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rajagopal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 30Section 32Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

appellant is bad, erroneous in law, addition made is excessive and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the same. 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred, in law and in facts, by disallowing the employees contribution to provident fund ... employees state insurance amounting to Rs. 23,13,160/- and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the same. 4. The learned Assessing Officer has erred, in law and in facts, by not considering the provisions of Section 30 and Section 32 of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 wherein

Shri Popat Karbhari Bhalerao, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1324/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1323 & 1324/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shri Popat Karbhari Bhalerao, The Income Tax Officer, Yeshdei Niwas, Maratha V Ward-2(1), Nashik. Nagar, Near Rajrajeshwari S Mangal Karyalay, Jailroad, Nashik Road, Nashik-422101. Pan: Aaqpb3523N Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)[Nfac] For A.Y.2017-18 Dated 02.09.2022 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 30.12.2021. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 147Section 24Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(e)Section 274Section 9

reproduced here as under : [Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income. Shri Popat Karbhari Bhalarao [A] 270A. (1) The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, during the course of any proceedings under this Act, direct that any person who has under-reported

Shri Popat Karbhari Bhalerao, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward.2(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1323/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Section 147Section 24Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(e)Section 274Section 9

Esatto Builders P. Ltd, Kozhikkode vs. The ACIT, Kozhikkode

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed on the foregoing terms, and it’s stay petition dismissed as unfructuous

ITA 559/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Sa No. 120/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Esatto Builders Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Cit, Circle - 2(1) 29/229 A5, 229 A6, Jp Complex Kozhikode 673001 Near Civil Station, Quilandy Vs. Kozhikode 673305 [Pan: Aacce2371D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jestin Mathew, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250(1)Section 250(6)

order under, or otherwise in terms of section 250(6) of the Act, which reads as under: Procedure in appeal. 250. (1) The Commissioner (Appeals) shall fix a day and place for the hearing of the appeal, and shall give notice of the same to the appellant ... Assessing Officer against whose order the appeal is preferred. 2 – 5 …………………… (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. Even assuming, as stated, and not unreasonably, that

Dignity of Girl Child Foundation, Jaipur vs. Exemption Ward-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 682/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Badgujar, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)

Limitation Act, 1963 Appellate Tribunal - Appeals to (Condonation of dealy) - Assessment year 2009-10 Impugned order dated 3-9-2015 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) was delivered to assessee some time in September, 2015 and immediately after receipt of said order, assessee supplied said order to office of her Chartered Accountant

Bellur Hiriyaniah Sridhar Murthy, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rajagopal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 30Section 32Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

erroneous in Page 2 of 10 law, addition made is excessive and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the same. 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred, in law and in facts, by disallowing the employees contribution to provident ... fund and employees state insurance amounting to Rs. 2,01,791/- and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the same. 4. The learned Assessing Officer has erred, in law and in facts, by not considering the provisions of Section 30 and Section 32 of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme

DCIT Central Circle-01, Delhi vs. Dl Heera Bhai Jewellery Arcade Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 61/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi26 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT [AS (Third Member)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 154

expenditure from Rs.1,52,00,000/- to Rs.21,63,486/-. In so far as couple of other additions made by the Assessing Officer, Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed them. 11. Being aggrieved with the decision of Ld. First Appellate Authority, both assessee and Revenue came in appeal before the Tribunal. While ... passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153C of the Act. He submitted, in absence of grounds raised by the Revenue challenging the finding of Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that the assessment order has been passed u/s 143(3) r.w. 153C of the Act, Ld. Judicial Member could not have gone beyond

Dl Heera Bhai Jewellery Arcade Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, New Delhi

ITA 951/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi26 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT [AS (Third Member)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 154

Jmk Exports, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 1, New Delhi

ITA 1428/DEL/2021[2017-2018]Status: HeardITAT Delhi26 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon'Ble, Shri. Saktijit Dey Before Hon'Ble, Shri. Saktijit Dey Before Hon'Ble, Shri. Saktijit Dey []

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Rai, Standing Counsel

Section 132Section 68Section 69

while completing the assessment. 9. Against the assessment order so passed, assessee preferred in appeal before ld. Commissioner (Appeals). In course of hearing of appeal before ld. First Appellate Authority, the assessee furnished further documentary evidences to prove the identity of the purchasers; their creditworthiness as also the genuineness ... transaction. However, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) did not find merit in the submissions of the assessee, hence, confirmed the addition. Dispute travelled to Tribunal. While deciding the issue, learned Accountant Member, having found that the assessee was able to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the entities purchasing gold/bullion from

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jindal Poly Films Ltd., Bulandshahr

In the result, the appeals of assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed partly and of other years in hand is allowed with consequences to follow as per the determination of issues above and appeals of rev...

ITA 3364/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 14ASection 153ASection 250

been affirmed by the this Tribunal, in ITA No.256/Del/2015 & Ors. dated 06.02.2024 allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has preferred appeal before us and assailed the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals). The learned CIT DR strongly argued the case and relied ... consideration to the orders of the authorities below. In so far as A.Y. 2009-10 is concerned, the only reason given by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for not entertaining the claim of subsidy is that the same was claimed by way of a revised computation of income and is therefore

M/S. Bulk Liquid Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1041/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajagopal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Nischal, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 250Section 30Section 32Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

appellant is bad, erroneous in law, addition made is excessive and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the same. 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred, in law and in facts, by disallowing the employees contribution to provident fund ... employees state insurance amounting to Rs. 11,90,092/-and the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) erred in upholding the same. 4. The learned Assessing Officer has erred, in law and in facts, by not considering the provisions of Section 30 and Section 32 of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 wherein

Pandit Nathu Ram Gaur Charitable Trust, Khondli Krishna Nagar vs. ITO, Ward Exemption, 2(4), Civic Centre

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 91/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

such an assessee. b. Siva Equipment Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2. 119 taxmann.com 472 (Bombay High Court) Income Tax Commissioner (Appeals) has jurisdiction to deal with additional grounds including those which were available when original return was filed. [Both these judgments are after taking into consideration

Preeti Bhardwaj, K vs. ITO Ward 29(3), Civic Centre

Appeal are allowed

ITA 78/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 120Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

because of his serious illness and old age Assessing Officer however, disbelieved assessee and made additions to income of assessee Commissioner (Appeals) gave part relief and restricted addition to Rs. 44.13 lakhs after holding that cash of Rs. 19.50 lakhs withdrawn from account could be held ... material, it could not be presumed that cash deposited by assessee was out of some undisclosed source and thus, addition as sustained by 7 Commissioner (Appeals) was to be deleted Held, yes [Para 10] [In favour of assessee) c) ITO vs Deepali Sehgal [ITA No 5660/Del/2012] (Delhi Trib

Mukesh Kumar Ranka, Indore, Madhya Pradesh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh

Appeals are allowed

ITA 98/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Indore21 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

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

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

section 271AAB of the Act which reads as under: XXX Section 158BFA(2): (2) The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under this Chapter, may direct that a person shall pay by way of penalty a sum which shall not be less than

Mukesh Kumar Ranka, Indore, Madhya Pradesh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh

Appeals are allowed

ITA 97/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Indore21 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

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

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

Anju Jain, Lr Shri Sushil Jain, Indore, Madhya Pradesh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh

Appeals are allowed

ITA 104/IND/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Indore21 Mar 2024

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

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

Anju Jain, Lr Sushil Jain, Indore, Madhya Pradesh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh

Appeals are allowed

ITA 103/IND/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Indore21 Mar 2024

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

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

Gendalal Jadhav, Indore vs. ITO-1(1), Indore

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

ITA 466/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanigendalal Jadhav, Ito 1(1) 168-G Palakhedi, Gandhi Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Nagar Indore Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aphpj4675K Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh, Ar Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2024 O R D E R

Section 54B

factual aspect relating to this issue remains undisputed. Therefore, there is no need to deliberate further on facts. The only reason for which learned Commissioner (Appeals) has denied assessee's claim of deduction under Section 54B of the Act is because the agricultural land in which the capital gain