“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)

Vijayalaxmi Metals Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ) NFAC, Delhi

ITA 1750/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Nimesh Yadav, D.R

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

respectively on identically worded grounds except the difference in figures inter-alia that:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals) - NFAC Delhi has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the Ld. Jt Commissioner of Income Tax - Palghar ... section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Hon'ble Commissioner Appeals)-NFAC Delhi justified not holding that the journal entries should enjoy equal immunity on par with account payee cheques and bank drafts

Saigal Seatrade, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 21 (3), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7404/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40

various expenditure claimed by the assessee for want of supporting details and vouchers. Though the assessee challenged the disallowance before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), he also confirmed the disallowance. 14. Learned Counsel for both the parties agreed that the issue in dispute is decided against the assessee by the Tribunal

Kolla Gowri, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Chittoor

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

ITA 1039/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Kolla Gowri, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, R/O.Chennai. Chittoor. Pan : Aoepg6939E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri C.A. Sumitra Nandan, Revenue By: Ms. Swapna. Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2022 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri C.A. Sumitra NandanFor Respondent: Ms. Swapna. Sr.A.R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(47)Section 50DSection 53A

dt.25.04.2019 invoking proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). “1. The order of the Commissioner (Appeal) is bad in law and on facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.70 ... short-term capital gains made by the Assessing Officer. 2 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to see that the Assessing Officer erred in calculating the capital gains by taking into the proposed cost of construction, which is against the provisions of section 50D of the Income

M/S. Mercator Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO by the asssessee are dismissed and the asseessee appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7278/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 7278/Mum/2017 (A.Y: 2010-11) & Co No. 21/Mum/2019 (2010-11) (Arising Out Of Ita No. 29/Mum/2018) Mercator Ltd Vs. Dcit 3Rd Floor, Mittal Tower- Range 5(2) B Wing, Nariman Point Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Mumbai- 400021. Road, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm5007A Appellant .. Respondent Dy. Cit Vs. Mercator Lines Ltd Range 5(2)(2), Rno.571 3Rd Floor, Mittal Tower- Aayakar Bhavan, Mk B Wing, Nariman Point Road, Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai - 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm5007A Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Nikhil Tiwari.Ar Revenue By : Mr.Krishnakumarmishra.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: 29/Mum/2018 & Co No. 21/Mum/2019 M/S. Mercator Ltd, Mumbai. The Cross Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Cit(A))-57, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act & The Assessee Has Filed The Cross Objection(Co) In The Revenue Appeal.

For Appellant: Mr.Nikhil Tiwari.ARFor Respondent: Mr.KrishnaKumarMishra.DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

share capital, reserves and surplus and depreciation reserves and, thus, entire investment had been made in sister concern out of interest-free funds Commissioner (Appeals) accepted assessee's contention and directed Assessing Officer to allow entire amount of interest under section 36(1)(iii) Tribunal upheld order of Commissioner (Appeals ... instant appeal, it was seen that Commissioner (Appeals) as also Tribunal had recorded a clear finding that assessee had interest-free funds of its own which had been generated in course of year commencing from 1-4-1999 Further, in terms of balance-sheet there was an availability

M/S. Buro Happold Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT (Int Tax) -1(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 1690/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Us:-

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234B

issue whether cost recharge is in the nature of fees for technical services will automatically get resolved since both the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals) have treated it as fees for technical services on the reasoning that such cost recharge is ancillary and incidental to consulting engineering services ... itself, is in the nature of fees for technical services and there is no necessity of fulfilling the condition of "make available". The learned Commissioner (Appeals) while agreeing with the aforesaid reasoning of the Assessing Officer has further supplemented it by observing that through the provision of technical drawing

Narendra Thacker, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-27(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2490/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2490/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Narendra Thacker बिधम/ Ito-27(2)(4) 303-B Wing Bellona Bldg, Tower No.6, Fourth Floor, Vs. 90 Ft Road, Pant Nagar, Vashi Railway Station Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai- Complex, Vashi, Navi 400075. Mumbai-4000703. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpt1799E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Smt. Nayana K. Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2022 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. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 27.07.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. None Appeared For The Assessee. However, On Perusal Of The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, It Is Noted That The Main Grievance Of Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ao In Not Giving Proper Opportunity Before Making An Addition Of Rs.4,25,000/-.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Nayana K. Kumar

Section 143(1)

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

Sakshi Rajan Gupta, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 2095/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2095/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sakshi Rajan Gupta बिधम/ Acit Circle Int Tax- 6, Pankaj Mahal, 2Nd Floor, 1(3)(1) Vs. Jt Siphimalani Marg, Mumbai. Churchgate-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afjpg9115Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pritesh Joshi Revenue By: Shri Milind Chavan (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2022 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. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-42 Dated 09.06.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ao In Not Giving Proper Opportunity To The Assessee Before Passing The Assessment Order Wherein He Has Disallowed The Expenses Of Rs.28,79,641/- Claimed By The Assessee (Non-Resident).

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan (Sr. DR)

Goodrich Maritime Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asstt Commm of Income Tax, Circle 14(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are fully allowed

ITA 1874/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Satyapal Kumar, Sr. DR

Income-tax Section 50 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Computation of, in case of depreciable assets - Assessment year 1994-95 - Commissioner (Appeals) sustained Assessing Officer’s orders holding that land and building being one composite unit and inseparable, since assessee received total sale consideration in respect

Mrunal Nilesh Desai, Thane vs. ACIT, Circle 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is party allowed with above direction

ITA 1462/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Mrunal Nilesh Desai Acit,Circle 19(2) 12/D, Cedar Co-Op Housing 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir Society, Edenwoods Cross Bldg, Tardeo, Grant Road, Vs. Pokhram 2, Mumbai-400 007 Thane (W) - 400 610 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Afepd5715N Assessee By : Shri. Tanmay Phadke Revenue By : Shri. Ujjawal Chavan Sr Ar Date Of Hearing: 19.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/12/2022

For Appellant: Shri. Tanmay PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri. Ujjawal Chavan SR AR

Section 144Section 147Section 148

appellate order is in appeal before us raising following grounds:- 1462/MUM/2022 Mrunal Nilesh Desai: A.Y. 2010-11 “1. The notices issued by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-30, Mumbai were not received by the Appellant and remained to be unattended. The Appellant with folded hands begs for one more opportunity ... requests the Hon’ble ITAT to remand the matter back to the file of either the learned Commissioner (Appeals) or the learned assessing officer as the case may be. 2. The learned Assessing Officer treated the entire sale consideration of ₹ 15,00,000/- as income of the Appellant and added

Rajeev Sheth, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partially allowed

ITA 2663/MUM/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.2663/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2001-02) Mr. Rajeev Sheth बिधम/ Income Tax Officer- 37/A, Villa Ramona, Nepeansea 16(2) (4) Vs. Road, Mumbai-400036 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri .B.V JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri. T. Sankar, CIT DR

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 31.03.2004. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) (Ld. CIT(A)on 28th April, 2004. To support the grounds of appeal, the assessee filed paper book (PB) and written submissions before

ITO 3(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Omega Investment & Properties Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 868/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.868/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Income Tax Officer 3(2) (4) बिधम/ M/S. Omega Investment & Room No. 673,6Th Floor, Properties Ltd Vs. 32-B, Jolly Maker Chambers Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, No.2 Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai- 400020. 400021. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco0978L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Mr. Rakesh Joshi Revenue By: Mr. Asif Karmani, Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Asif Karmani, Sr. AR

Section 148Section 254Section 80Section 80I

overwriting the notification of the board under section 119 of the Act. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the order. 4. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his judgment has specifically observed that the project of the assessee is approved as slum rehabilitation project by slum rehabilitation authority of the State

Alibhai Vadasaria Zulfikar, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 17(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2403/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharyalibhai Vadasaria Vs. Acit, Circle-17(1) Zulficar, 104, Dayal Room No. 117, 1 St Floor, Bhavan, Kesavji Naik Aaykar Bhavan, Road, Chinch Bunder, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400009 Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaapz0795P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Tanmay PhadkeFor Respondent: Mehul Jain

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 69A

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) "the learned Commissioner (Appeals)) erred in deciding the appeal ex parte in violation of the principle of natural justice. Thus, the order dated 03.08.2022 may be set aside and the matter ... restored back to the file of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). ITA No.2403/Mum/2022 A.Y.2013-14 2 Alibhai Vadasaria Zulficar Vs. ACIT, Circle-17(1) 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 03.08 2022 as passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals