“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)

ACIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Bharti Hexacom Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed for AY

ITA 6547/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 35ASection 37Section 37(1)Section 40

section 37(1) of the Act will not get attracted. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting the disallowance. Ground raised is dismissed. 8.1. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, the Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed ... invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Assessee contested the aforesaid disallowance by filing an appeal before Id. Commissioner (Appeals). Noticing that identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, learned Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the disallowance. 16. Before

Chakargadh Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Chakargadh Seva, Dist. Amreli vs. The DCIT(CPC), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 187/RJT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 30Section 80Section 801

Chakargadh Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. vs. DCIT (CPC) Grounds of Appeal Tax effect relating to each Ground of appeal 1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in confirming action of CPC Bengaluru by disallowing claim of deduction of Rs.5,58,494/-by failing to appreciate that ... when the return of income is not filed within time allowed u/s 139(1) of the Act but u/s 139(4). 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), National 1,72,574/- Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in upholding action of the CPC Bengaluru in making adjustment to the returned income

Shri Rajkot Distt. Co. Op. Bank Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 288/RJT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 30(1)(viii)Section 35(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(viii)

respect of two 100 per cent Export Oriented Undertakings, however, all necessary facts for claiming deduction under section 10B were already on record, Commissioner (Appeals) in exercise of his plenary/co-terminus powers, as well as Tribunal, ought to have entertained claim. The Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka State

Shri Umakant Sharma, Jhabua vs. The JCIT, Ratlam

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 366/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

passed- (a) 3 in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject- matter of an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 253, after the expiry of the financial year ... penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from the end of the month in which the order of 4 the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever period expires later

Shri Umakant Sharma, Jhabua vs. The JCIT, Ratlam

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 365/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

Shri Umakant Sharma, Jhabua vs. The JCIT, Ratlam

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 364/IND/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

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

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Ajmer vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 210/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 210/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer cuke Vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma F-108, Industrial Area, Makhupura Parbatpura, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ASWPS 3791 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. No. 04/JP/2023 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 210/JP/2023) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 Yashwant Kumar Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. James Kurian (CIT) &

Section 139(1)Section 271ASection 274

upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub- section (1). 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

M/S. Steecon Infrastructure, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 61/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Steecon Infrastructure Income Tax Officer 1(4) 85, Subhash Nagar, Pal Road, Paota Jodhpur- 242008 Vs. Jodhpur- 342008 Pan No. Acdfs3423Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Piyush Chajed and Mr SumitFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, AR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

such assessment. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing sub- section, if the [Assessing] Officer or the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the ] [Commissioner (Appeals)] in the course of any proceeding under this Act in respect of any such firm as is referred to in that sub-section

Radial International, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, New Delhi

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

ITA 340/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Return During The Year.

For Appellant: Shri Nagesh Kumar Behl, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :- “1. That the order of Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is contrary to the law and the facts of the appellant’s case. 2. That the AO (CPC) erred in disallowing the PF payment

Michael Graves Design Group Inc., Usa vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs i

ITA 6007/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 & Asstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 115ASection 143(3)

facts of the present case. In view of the aforesaid we do not find any valid reasons to interfere with the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, we uphold the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue by dismissing ground raised.” 15. In Gera Development (P.) Ltd. (supra

Michael Graves Design Group Inc., Usa vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs i

ITA 7683/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 & Asstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 115ASection 143(3)

Seema Pandit, Mount Au vs. ITO, Ward, Mount Abu

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

ITA 160/JODH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: The Cit(A) To Rectify The Order. The Cit(A) Has Rejected The Application U/S 154 Vide Order Dated 29.3.2019 & Served The Order On The Assessee On 19.4.2019. After Rejection Of His Application U/S 154, The Assessee Has Immediately Filed This Appeal Before The Hon'Ble Tribunal..

Section 154Section 250(6)

appearance of the assessee without deciding the appeal on merits. As per section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act "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

JCIT Spl. Range-12, New Delhi vs. Arihanta Industries, Delhi

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

ITA 963/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 131Section 68Section 801CSection 80I

genuineness of the transaction of sale by the assessee. In the light of the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals), it was expected that the Tribunal should have gone into the question of identity of the jewellery declared under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme ... into the question whether the assessee had not received bogus accommodation book entries as inferred in the order of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals). In the absence thereof, the finding of the Tribunal could not be sustained." In view of the above, there is no iota of doubt

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Raipur vs. Psa Construction, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 145/RPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 250(4)Section 253

conduct proper scrutiny of material, in event of Assessing Officer failing to discharge his functions properly, obligation to conduct proper inquiry shifts to Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal and they cannot simply delete addition made by Assessing Officer on ground of lack of inquiry *Pradeep Kumar Biyani ... Unexplained investments - Assessment year 2000-01 - Where addition was based solely on assessee's confession during survey which was later retracted and Commissioner (Appeals), after considering material produced by assessee during assessment proceedings and on due appreciation thereof, had accepted explanation of assessee for retraction of his admission as bona

Bhuramal Rajmal Surana & Sons Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 254/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Her; (B) No Proceedings Were Directed To Be Initiated In Original Appeal Order Dt. 28.02.2022 And/Or; (C) It Has Been Passed In Haste Without Affording Reasonable Opportunity To The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Manisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270ASection 271ASection 41(1)Section 68

ready reference and sake of convenience the said provisions are reproduced herein below:- (1) In disposing of an appeal, the [Commissioner (Appeals)] shall have the following powers (a) in an appeal against an order of assessment, he may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment 5 Bhuramal Rajmal Surana & Sons ... reduce the penalty: (c) in any other case, he may pass such orders in the appeal as he thinks fit. (2) The Commissioner (Appeals)] shall not enhance an assessment or a penalty or reduce the amount of refund unless the appellant has had a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against

Madan Mohan Mishra, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 796/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.796/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Madan Mohan Mishra बिधम/ Income Tax Office- R. 80 Ttc, Industrial Area 10(3)(3) Vs. Midc, Rabal, Navi Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-4000701. Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpm3701B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. L. Jain Revenue By: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-17, Mumbai Dated 29.12.2017 For Ay. 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act’) Of Rs.22,70,610/- Which Assessee Claims To Be Agricultural Income & Disallowance Of Rs.36,967/- As Expenses. 3. Brief Facts As Noted By The Ao Is That The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income At Rs.14,93,823/-. Later, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That The Assessee Had Shown Agricultural Income Of Rs.38,01,400/- Which Was Claimed As Exempt Income. However, According To Ao, The Assessee Failed To Prove That He Had Earned Exempt/Agricultural Income

For Appellant: Shri S. L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. DR)

Section 68

favour of the assessee. 3. The appeals are allowed. The order under challenge is set aside. The assessment orders, 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

Usg Boral Building Products(India) Private Limited, Haryana vs. ITO Ward-27(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 8446/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2015-16] Knauf India Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, (Earlier Known As Usg Boral Ward-27(2), Building Products (India) Pvt.Ltd.), New Delhi. S-217, Ground Floor, Panchsheel Park, South Delhi, New Delhi-110017. Pan-Aabcl1984A Appellant Respondent Appellant By S/Shri S.K.Agarwal, Ca, Gopal Agarwal, Ca & Shubham Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.07.2023

Section 143(2)Section 37

Ld.CIT(A) is embodied in section 251 of the Act, same is reproduced herein below for the sake of clarity:- Powers of the [Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals). 251. (1) “In disposing of an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall have the following powers— (a) in an appeal against ... other case, he may pass such orders in the appeal as he thinks fit. [(1A) In disposing of an appeal, the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) shall have the following powers— (a) in an appeal against an order of assessment, he may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment

M/S. Bombardier Transportation Gmbh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 1390/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 144C(13)

No.859/Del/2016, order dated 29.10.2020. 9. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted, in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2012-13, learned Commissioner (Appeals) being conscious of the directions of learned DRP in the impugned assessment year held that BTIL does not constitute a PE of the assessee. Further ... World Championship Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra). 19. It is further relevant to observe, in assesse’s own case in assessment year 2012-13, learned Commissioner (Appeals), being 16 | P a g e AY: 2010-11 conscious of the observations of learned DRP with regard to BTIL constitutes a fixed place

Meka Kasi Viseswarudu, Vizianagaram vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

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

ITA 212/VIZ/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.212/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Meka Kasi Visweswarudu Vs. Income Tax Officer K-5 Pradeep Nagar Ward-1 Vt Agraharam Vizianagaram Vizianagaram [Pan : Abvpm2320H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri YA Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in dismissing the ground raised against assessability of long term capital gains on sale of Agricultural Land. 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals ... deciding the disputed issue without obtaining the remand report sought by him during the course of appeal proceedings vide letter dt.20/4/2018. 3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the assessing officer are not justified in ignoring the certificate issued by the Tahsildar who confirmed that the lands sold were agricultural lands

Andhra Pradesh Tanneries Limited, Vizianagaram vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for stasistical purpose

ITA 191/VIZ/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.191/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Andhra Pradesh Tanneries Ltd. Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Ida, Leather Complex Area Income Tax Nellimarla Circle-3(1) Vizianagaram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aabca4797L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Y.A.Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

before us. Originally, the assessee had raised 10 grounds of appeal and later revised to 5 grounds of appeal as follows : 1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in dismissing the appeal, without providing a fresh opportunity to hear the appeal, particularly, when the Commissioner(Appeals) has not received ... Forgings Ltd. on 31/03/2005, which was repaid in instalments by B.C.L.Forgings Ltd. during the financial eyar 2005-06 (A/Y2006-08)” 3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in passing orders u/s 250, relying on the remand report dated 17/07/2017 received from A.O., which in fact, was not accepted and a fresh report