“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)

Pushpaben Chandulal Shah, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Mumbai

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

ITA 2096/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalpushpaben Chandulal Shah, D-3, Siddhapura Industrial Estate, L.B.S Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086. Pan: Aapps2890B ...... Appellant Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Rajesh Shah & Sh. Nimish Shah Respondent By : Sh. Ashish Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Shah & Sh. Nimish ShahFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 33(6)

Unexplained expenditure (Bogus purchases) - Assessment year 2011-12 - Assessing Officer treated purchases made by assessee as bogus purchases and disallowed in totality - Commissioner (Appeals) directed Assessing Officer to disallow 12.5 per cent of bogus purchases and to add 12.5 per cent of amount of purchases to income of assessee - Tribunal ... upheld view of Commissioner (Appeals) - Revenue contended before High Court that bogus purchases ought to have been disallowed in totality - It was noted that if factum of sales had been accepted by department then even if it was established that there were bogus purchases, it was not necessary that entire

Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle-15 (3)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7318/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(2), Plot No.9, Midc, Digha, Room No. 451, Aayakar Thane- Belapur Road, Navi Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Mumbai-400 708 Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaack2238F Assessee By : Shri V. Shridharan & Ms. Manasi C, Ar Revenue By : Shri C T Mathew, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri V. Shridharan &For Respondent: Shri C T Mathew, DR

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 92C

deeming clause of sub-section (1) of section 9. Sulzes Pumps I Pvt. ltd.;AY 15-16 9. In the present case, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal have accepted the assessee's factual assertion that the payments were for technical services provided by a non-resident, for providing services ... which was based in India. The facts were Sulzes Pumps I Pvt. ltd.;AY 15-16 thus different. It was also argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on a decision in the case of Adani Enterprises Ltd. (supra) against which, the Revenue's appeal has been admitted

ITO WD - 25(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Denish Harilal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed with the above directions

ITA 3617/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalito, Ward-25(2)(3), C-10, R.No. 504, 5Th Floor, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. ..... Appellant Vs. Mr. Denish Harilal Shah Flat No. 101, 1St Floor, Paan Villa, Sarojini Road, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400057 Pan: Awgps3773C ...... Respondent C.O. No. 48/Mum/2020 In Ita No. 3617/Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2012-13) Mr. Denish Harilal Shah Flat No. 101, 1St Floor, Paan Villa, Sarojini Road, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400057 Pan: Awgps3773C ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward-25(2)(3), C-10, R.No. 504, 5Th Floor, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Bharat Kumar Respondent/Respondent By : Sh. Mahita Nair

For Appellant: Sh. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Sh. Mahita Nair

Section 143(1)Section 151

Unexplained expenditure (Bogus purchases) - Assessment year 2011-12 - Assessing Officer treated purchases made by assessee as bogus purchases and disallowed in totality - Commissioner (Appeals) directed Assessing 7 ITA No. 3617/Mum/2018 & C.O. No. 48/Mum/2020 Mr. Denish Harilal Shah Officer to disallow 12.5 per cent of bogus purchases ... cent of amount of purchases to income of assessee - Tribunal upheld view of Commissioner (Appeals) - Revenue contended before High Court that bogus purchases ought to have been disallowed in totality - It was noted that if factum of sales had been accepted by department then even if it was established that

Della Adventure and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1708/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 Della Adventure & Resorts Pvt. National Faceless Appeal Ltd., Centre (Nfac), Delhi, 401, Della Tower, 795 Parsi Vs. Colony, Jam-E-Jamshed Road, Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aadcd 2549 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Hitesh P. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. T. Shankar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Hitesh P. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR

Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

circumstances of the case and in law, On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in disallowing the (Appeals) erred in disallowing the employees' employees' contribution contribution Rs. Rs. 11,58,655/- 11,58,655/ employers' contributions to Provident ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, acts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner (Appeals), without considering the facts on the Commissioner (Appeals), without considering the facts on the Commissioner (Appeals), without considering the facts on record and submissions filed

Della Adventure and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1707/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Mr. Hitesh P. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR

Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

ADIT (It)-3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Nagase & Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2312/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2022AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharashi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250

Head Office did not know any other language except Japanese. The other impounded documents specifically referred to by the Assessing Officer and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in no way conclusively establishes the fact that the Liaison Office at Mumbai was acting as an agent by involving itself in concluding contracts

M/S. Nagase & Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT (I.T) - RG.-3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1805/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2022AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharashi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250

M/S. Nagase & Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT (I.T) - RG.-3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1803/MUM/2007[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2022AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharashi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250

The ADIT(It)-3(2), Mumbai vs. M/.S Nagase & Company Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 343/MUM/2006[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2022AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharashi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250

M/S. Nagase & Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT(A) Xxxiii, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 118/MUM/2006[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2022AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharashi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250

M/S.Mgn Agro Properties Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT(Central), Mumbai-2, Mumbai

ITA 746/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Mamta Bansal, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 254Section 263

assessee and were not subject matter of the appeals by the assessee – assessee contended that order of ITO merged with that of Commissioner (Appeals) so as to exclude jurisdiction of the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act. The question arose before the Hon’ble Apex Court as to whether ... assessee and were not subject matter of the appeal by the assessee there is no question that order of ITO merged with that of Commissioner(Appeals) so as to exclude jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act because under the amended provisions contained under section 263 of the Act power

Spencer Stuart International B.V., Mumbai vs. The Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1148/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)

agents paid their proportionate share of the expenses incurred on these said systems and for maintaining those systems. Neither the Assessing Officer nor the Commissioner (Appeals) had stated that there was any profit element embedded in the payments received by the assessee from its agents in India. Once the character

M/S. Tropical Clothing Co. P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT Cir. - 7(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1969/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Tropical Clothing Vs. Addl. Cit-7(3) Co. Private Limited Aaykar Bhavan, Unit No.4, Nirman M.K. Road, Kendra, Dr. E. Moses Mumbai – 400 020 Road, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400 011 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabct6119R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil DesaiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 143(3)

inspection and verification. This fact has not been doubted by the Assessing Officer and has given the benefit of 500 pieces. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer after rejecting the contentions raised by the assessee as discussed above From the material referred

Association of Mutual Funds in India, Mumbai vs. DCIT(E)-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is allowed

ITA 5761/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Samir Kapadia/ Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan/ Mehul Jain

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 25

discuss the facts pertaining to appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12. 3. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the order of the learned Assessing Officer on denial of exemption u/s 11 and 12 to your appellants. 2. The learned ... Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in upholding the view of the Assessing Officer that the first proviso to section 2(15) applied to your appellants. 3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not correct in taking the view that your appellant was carrying on an activity in relation to trade, commerce

M/S. Mittal Clothing Company, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 673/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-29

For Appellant: Shri Rajgopal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K Sankar Ganesh, JCIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

made before the filing the return of income. 3. The Appellant being aggrieved by the order of Ld. AO, preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC),Delhi on merits of the case. 4. The, Commissioner (Appeal) passed an order ... amendment made in Finance Act 2021, though the case pertains to FY20 17-18. 5. The Appellant being aggrieved by order of Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) prefers this appeal before this Hon ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the redressal of the issues in the interest of justice under the facts

Sri. P. Vijayakumar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(2)(3), Bangalore

ITA 1104/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R. [CIT]

Section 234ASection 250Section 251

Gandhinaagar vs. Jagatkuamr Satishbhai Patel in which it has been held as under :- 2. Having perused the documents on record, we notice that the Commissioner (Appeals) had confirmed the Assessing Officer's order making an addition of Rs. 10,09,000/= under Section 68 of the Income

The ACIT Cent. Cir -5(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Nitan Chhatwal, Mumbai

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

ITA 2244/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

considering the orders of authorities and principles of law, I am of 22 Nitan Chhatwal the opinion that the orders of assessing officer and Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be sustained. The issues contested by assessee can be categorized under the heads :– i. Whether reopening under section 147 is correct when ... ordinate Bench in the case of M/s. Eenadu Relief Fund v. DDIT(E)- II in ITA No. 434/Hyd/2010 dt. 13.1.2011 (quoted before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in written submissions) by assessee, held as under :– “9.3. Return filed for the assessment years 1994-95 on 28-3-1996 and the same

ACIT Cent. Cir -5(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Nitan Chhatwal, Mumbai

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

ITA 2243/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

Income Tax Officer (It) 3(1) (1), Mumbai vs. Armine Hamied Khan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 834/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

This appeal, filed by the Assessing Officer, calls into question the correctness of the order dated 17th February 2022 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2017-18, on the following grounds ... been rejected, even though accepted to be correct on merits, by the Assessing Officer, and, while the assessee got the necessary relief from the Commissioner (Appeals), the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) is now in challenge before us. 5. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim made by the assessee under

Peninsula Properties, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 735/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Dcit Central Circle–5(2) Peninsula Properties 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vakil Industrial Estate, Valbahat Nariman Point, Road, Goregaon East, Vs. Churchgate Mumbai-400 063 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaifp 7134 L Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Praveen Shekhar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Praveen Shekhar, DR

Section 143Section 250Section 41Section 41(1)

added under Peninsula Properties; A.Y. 18–19 section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act. This issue has been dealt with by both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal relying upon the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. G.K. Patel & Co. [2013] 29 taxmann.com