“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)

Sms Concast Ag, New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1361/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 9(1)(vii)

designs is taxable in India as FTS. Challenging the additions so made, the assessee preferred an appeal before learned first appellate authority. However, learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 8. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee had entered into ... India. He submitted, the amount received is not taxable as FTS. 10. Strongly relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals), the learned Departmental Representative submitted, the assessee has entered into separate contracts with JSW Steel Ltd. for supply of plants and equipments and supply

DCIT Circle 6 vs. Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1877/DEL/2007[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 1996-1997

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 1996-97 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Sahara India Financial Central Circle-6, Corporation Ltd., New Delhi 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Up Pan :Aadcs8698C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Sh. Arpit Goel, Advocate Department By Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 18.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.06.2023 Order Per Saktijit Dey, Jm: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Against Order Dated 22.01.2007 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, New Delhi, For The Assessment Year 1996-97. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: 1. Deleting The Addition Of Rs.81,50,93,579/- Made On Account Of Disallowance Of Reimbursement Of Expenses To Agent. Ay: 1996-97

Section 143(3)

mobilized during the year and disallowed the balance amount of Rs.81,50,93,579/-. Contesting the aforesaid disallowance, assessee preferred an appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). While deciding the appeal, learned first appellate authority, vide order dated 29.04.2000, deleted the disallowance holding the expenditure to be within reasonable limits. Against ... authority having found that similar addition made in assessee’s case in assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 has been deleted by learned Commissioner (Appeals), deleted the disallowance in the impugned assessment year, as well. 3 | P a g e AY: 1996-97 5. We have heard Sh. Ajay

Lease Plan India P.Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 4714/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2013-14 Lease Plan India P. Ltd., Versus Income-Tax Officer, C4C/332, Ground Floor, Ward 4(3), New Delhi. Janak Puri, New Delhi Pan: Aaacl6053B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Nikhil Gupta, Advocate & Sh. Rachit Abhishek, Advocate Revenue By : Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

appeal by the assessee against order dated 03.05.2017 of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-5, Delhi. Though, in the impugned order, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has disposed of the appeals relating to three assessment 2 years, i.e., 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14, however, presently, we are concerned with ... Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed of Rs.1,33,54,268/-. The assessee contested the aforesaid disallowance before learned first appellate authority. However, learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the disallowance. 5. Before us, it is a common point between the parties that the issue is squarely covered by the decision

Shri Amandeep Singh, Kapurthala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA no

ITA 59/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar14 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.59/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 251(2)Section 44ASection 69A

argued that the ld. CIT(A) has violated the provisions of section 251(2) which is extracted as below: “251 (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

ITO, Ward-10(3), Delhi vs. Grow More Buildtech Pvt.Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, appeal is

ITA 2002/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer, Versus Grow More Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Ward 10(3), Delhi. Plot No. 77, S.A. House, Sector-44, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaccg3841L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 03/Del/2022 (In Ita No. 2002/Del/2021) Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 147

sale transaction was completed in assessment 4 year 2011-12, wherein, the assessee has offered the profit from sale of land to tax, learned Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the addition. 4. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. Undisputedly, the sale deed, evidencing transfer of land from ... amount to double taxation of the same income. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting the addition. Grounds raised are dismissed. In the result, appeal is dismissed. 7. In so far as cross objection is concerned, learned

Shri Ramchandra Dhopeshwarkar, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 913/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Ramchandra Vs. International Tax Dhopeshwarkar, 404/11J Ward 2(1)(1) Neelam Nagar Chs, Room No. 1724, 17Th Phase Ii, Gavan Pada, Floor, Air India Building, Mulund (E), Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400081 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Afrpd9868F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Soumendu Kumar Das Date Of Hearing 08.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-56, Mumbai, Dated 15.01.2023 For A.Y. 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-56, Mumbai, Is Bad In Law On Various Grounds Apart From Being Passed In Gross Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal In Limine On The Alleged Ground Of Delay In Filing The Appeal Without Giving Any Opportunity & Without Appreciating The Fact There Is Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Factually Incorrect. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Dealing With The Grounds Of Appeal Raised Before Him Despite Receiving The Remand Report From The Ld. Ao.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Das

Section 115BSection 144Section 148Section 69A

Appeals)-56, Mumbai, is bad in law on various grounds apart from being passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine on the alleged ground of delay in filing the appeal without giving any opportunity and without appreciating

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Gurugram vs. Deepak Kumar, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1306/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-1, Gurugram, Deepak Kumar, Haryana 122016 H.No. 13/2, Dlf Phase-1, Lower Vs. Ground Floor, Gurugram, Haryana Pan Aaapk 4112 D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri T. James Singson, Cit(Dr) For Assessee : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Date Of Hearing : 11.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-34, New Delhi Dated 27.06.2019 For Ay 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows:- I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(4) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Us 271D Of The Act Relying On The Order Of The Hon 'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, cAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT(DR)

Section 269S

Appellate Tribunal. By an order dated 6-10-2004, the Tribunal (in paragraph 9 of the said order) upheld the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dated 6-9-2000. The Tribunal held that the receipt was outside the scope of undisclosed income defined under section 158B

ACIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi vs. Unitech Holdings Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 5254/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Circle 27(1), Versus Unitech Holdings Ltd., New Delhi. 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacu0237C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT(DR)

Section 14A

Whereas, the Assessing Officer without controverting the aforesaid claim of the assessee has proceeded to compute disallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) having factually found that in the year under consideration, no exempt income is earned by the assessee, has deleted the addition. Keeping in view ... legal position on the issue as propounded in various judicial precedents, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, we uphold the deletion of disallowance made by learned Commissioner (Appeals). Grounds raised are dismissed. 7. In the result, appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced

Alrameez Construction Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

In the result grounds of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 482/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Alrameez Construction Pvt. Ltd. 707/708, 7Th Floor, Jms Business Centre Behram Baug, Oshiwara Link Road, Jogeshwari West, Mumbai-400 080 Pan: Aafca8078A ...... Appellant Vs. Cit/Nfac Delhi ..... Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. AR

Section 143Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 274Section 275Section 43C

herein below the provisions of section 270A as under:- [Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income. 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 ... include the following, namely:— (a) the amount of income in respect of which the assessee offers an explanation and the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner, as the case may be, is satisfied that the explanation is bona fide and the assessee

Ankit Diamonds, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-19(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3124/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. AR

Section 132(4)Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

that cash sales made by assessee were accepted by VAT Department as correct and VAT was duly paid on same - Both Assessing Officer and Commissioner (Appeals) had observed that assessee had claimed cash sales only for month of September, 2006 and bills were of specific amount - Some bills