“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)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Lyka Labs Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2934/MUM/2019[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 10(2)(1) Vs. M/S. Lyka Labs Ltd., 5Th Floor, Room No. Ground Floor, Spencer 509, Aayakar Bhavan, Bldg, 30, Forjett Street. Churchgate, Grant Road(West), Mumbai -400036. Mumbai -400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl0820G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt.Shailja Rai. Cit Dr Respondent By : Shri .Jayesh Dadia. Ar Date Of Hearing 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -17, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt.Shailja Rai. CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri .Jayesh Dadia. AR

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 55(2)

Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income etc. 271. (1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person........... (c) has concealed the particulars of his income ... under this Act, (A) such person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to be false, or (B) such person offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate

Little Diam, Gujarat vs. ACIT CC -1(3), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 361/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Sr. No.

For Appellant: Mr. Suchek Anchaliya &For Respondent: Mr. Manoj Sinha, DR

Section 147

section 251(2) of the Act. The relevant part of relevant part of the provision is reproduced as under: 251(2). The [Commissioner (Appeals) shall not enhanced an assessment 251(2). The [Commissioner (Appeals) shall not enhanced an assessment 251(2). The [Commissioner (Appeals) shall not enhanced an assessment

Lavapal R. Singh, Gujarat vs. Scit, CC-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 354/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Sr. No.

For Appellant: Mr. Suchek Anchaliya &For Respondent: Mr. Manoj Sinha, DR

Section 147

Laxmi Trading Company, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 351/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Sr. No.

For Appellant: Mr. Suchek Anchaliya &For Respondent: Mr. Manoj Sinha, DR

Section 147

Amit Diamonds, Gujarat vs. ACIT CC-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 349/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Sr. No.

For Appellant: Mr. Suchek Anchaliya &For Respondent: Mr. Manoj Sinha, DR

Section 147

Lunkaran Kothari, Surat vs. ACIT CC -1(3), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 344/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Sr. No.

For Appellant: Mr. Suchek Anchaliya &For Respondent: Mr. Manoj Sinha, DR

Section 147

Ankita Exports, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 330/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Sr. No.

For Appellant: Mr. Suchek Anchaliya &For Respondent: Mr. Manoj Sinha, DR

Section 147

Abhiman Gems Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT .CC-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 312/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Sr. No.

For Appellant: Mr. Suchek Anchaliya &For Respondent: Mr. Manoj Sinha, DR

Section 147

Bank of America N.A, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) RG 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed

ITA 3343/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bank Of America National Commissioner Of Income Tax Association, (International Taxation), Range-1, Ground Floor, A Wing, One Vs. 3Rd Floor, Room No. 9, Mittal Court Bkc, G Block, Bandra Kurla ‘B’ Wing, Nariman Point, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaacb 1537 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. P.J. Pardiwala/Vasanti Patel Revenue By : Mr. Sunil K. Jha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. P.J. Pardiwala/Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Mr. Sunil K. Jha, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263Section 9(1)(v)

facts, we have no hesitation in upholding the decision of the in facts, we have no hesitation in upholding the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue. Gr learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue. Grounds are dismissed. ounds are dismissed.” 8.9 Moreover, the Ld. Ld. CIT cannot hold

Isha Vijay Udani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 24(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 949/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blems. Isha Vijay Udani V. Cit(Appeals)-36 A/11, Aditya Apartment 707B, C-10 Old Nagardas Road Pratyakshkar Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400059 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Acbpu4746L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Choksy Department By : Shri R.N. D'Souza

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh ChoksyFor Respondent: Shri R.N. D'Souza

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

page No 9-14) the same should be accepted. Accordingly, the commission declared by the assessee is accepted and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard is set aside” 8. Thus, on the basis of the above mentioned facts, circumstances and evidences it is proved beyond any doubt

Immarsat Global Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose and ground raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 626/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleinmarsat Global Limited V. Dcit (It) – 2(2)(1) Ernst & Young Llp Room No. 1722, 17Th Floor 14Th Floor, The Ruby Air India Building, Nariman Point 29 Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400021 Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400028 Pan: Aaaci6098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aarati Sathe Department By : Ms. Bharati Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Aarati SatheFor Respondent: Ms. Bharati Singh

Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)

processing cost to the Head Office does not fall within the ambit of definition of “royalty” under Article 12(3)(a). 17. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the learned Senior Counsel have strongly relied upon the decision of the co–ordinate bench of the Tribunal in Kotak Mahindra Primus ... covered within the scope of expression “royalty” under Article12(3)(a) of the India Belgium DTAA. Accordingly, the conclusion drawn by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is affirmed. 20. Since we have already held that the data processing cost paid by the assessee does not amount to royalty, consequently, there

Prakash Industrial Corporation, Mumbai vs. Sandeep Kumar Singh-ITO-19(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 524/MUM/2022[10-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja ChhawachhariaFor Respondent: Shri Ajeya Kumar Ojha

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(3)

similar issue, the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has held that: "We are broadly in agreement with the reasoning adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) with respect to the nature of disputed purchases of steel. It may be that the three suppliers from whom the assessee claimed to have purchased ... total sale is accepted by the Assessing Officer, he could not have questioned the very basis of the purchases. In essence therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) believed assessee theory that the purchases were not bogus but were made from the parties other than those mentioned in the books of accounts. That

Radhakrishna Devanna Nayak, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1613/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleradhakrishna Devanna Vs. Nfac, New Delhi Nayak, 249, Matrupriti, Hingwala Lane, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai-400077. Pan/Gir No. : Aaapn4093Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri R.P. Veena.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Veena.DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 44A

assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in upholding addition' made to the income in respect of Radhakrishna Devanna Nayak., Mumbai. Employer and Employees contribution to PF at Rs.6

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Bharath Infra Exports & Imports Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R, Addl.DIT (DR)

Section 133ASection 14ASection 69

refer to Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 which specifically provides that the Appellant is not entitled to produce before Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals), as the case may be, any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the course ... illustrated in the said provision. The said rule reads as under: "46A. (1) The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] [or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)], any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during

Jt. Comm of Income Tax (OSD), CC - 7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Rajamundry Expressway Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1587/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Us :-

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)Section 801ASection 80I

also made couple of other disallowances. Against the assessment order so passed, the assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority. 6. Before learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee raised an additional ground challenging the validity of the assessment made under section 143(3) r/w section 153A ... assessee also contested the disallowance of deduction under section 80IA of the Act on merits. After considering the submissions of the assessee, learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that in the course of search operation carried out on Gammon India Ltd., incriminating material and other documents were found which revealed that

ITO 16(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Ashok R. Shah, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1826/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54E

that the proceeding gets barred by limitation, in our view, is unacceptable. Further, at the first appellate stage also learned Commissioner (Appeals) could have directed the Assessing Officer to get the valuation of the property done by the DVO and thereafter proceeded in accordance with law. In case ... making a reference to the DVO to determine the value of the property sold. The Assessing Officer having not done so and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) also failing to rectify the error committed by the Assessing Officer, we have no hesitation in restoring the issue to the Assessing Officer with

Ashok Rasiklal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 16(2)(4), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1268/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54E

C.N.Babu, Ramanagaram vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Ramanagara

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

ITA 356/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri. C. N. Babu, Vs. Ito, Prop: Hotel Chirag, Ward – 1, B. M. Road, Bidadi, Ramanagara. Ramanagaram Taluk – 562 109. Pan : Ajxpb 4497 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Raghavendra R. Chakravarthy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2018 Of Cit(A) – 3, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Ground Nos.1, 11 & 12 Raised By The Assessee Are General In Nature & Does Not Require Any Adjudication. Ground No.2 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri. Raghavendra R. Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 46ASection 68

laid down in Explanation to 251 of the Act. The relevant statutory provisions are as follows: “251. (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 ... Commissioner (Appeals) shall not enhance an assessment or a penalty or reduce the amount of refund unless the appellant Page 14 of 22 has had a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement or reduction. Explanation.—In disposing of an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) may consider and decide

Jsw Energy Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1223/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Us Is A Public Company Engaged In The Business Of Generation Of Power & Operation & Maintenance Of The Power Plants, As Also Other Allied Activities. During The Course Of Its Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Made A Reference Under Section 92Ca(1), For Determination Of The Arm‟S Length Price Of The International Transactions & Specified Domestic Transaction Entered Into By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes), To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Assessment Year 2014-15 Page 2 Of 17

Section 271GSection 92CSection 92D

required by sub-section (3) of section 92D, the Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing Officer as referred to in section 92CA or the Commissioner (Appeals) may direct that such person shall be liable to a penalty a sum equal to two per cent value of the international transactions ... prescribe the period for which the information and document shall be kept and maintained under that sub-section. (3) The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) may, in the course of any proceeding under this Act, require any person who has entered into an international transaction or specified domestic transaction

H.U.F. of His Late Highness Sir J.M. Scindia, Mumbai vs. ACIT Range -18(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5536/MUM/2019[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2022AY 1997-98

Bench: Us :-

Section 154Section 244A

assessee. Mere fact that the claim came to be granted by the Appellate Commissioner, would not change this position. In essence, what the Commissioner (Appeals) did was to allow a claim which in law, in his opinion, was allowable by the Assessing Officer. In other words, by passing order ... South Indian Bank Ltd. [2012] 340 ITR 574 in which the assessee had raised a belated claim for deduction which was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue, therefore, contended that for such delay, interest should be declined under Section 244A of the Act. In the said case also