← All Phrases

“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)

New Metal Refinery India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2615/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2614 To 2616/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) New Metal Refinery India बनाम/ Dcit-5(1)(2) Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Vs. 132, Appa Building, S.V.P. Line, Mumbai-400020. Road, Null Bazar, Mumbai- 400004. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcn9710C (अपीलधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Rajesh S. Shah Revenue By: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/07/2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 22.01.2019 For A.Y. 2009- 10, 2010-11 & 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Pointed Out That The Impugned Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is An Exparte Order, Even Though In The Cause-Title Of The Impugned Order, It Is Shown That Shri Shantilal Vora, Director Have Appeared For The Assessee. In Order To Demonstrate That It Was An Exparte Order, He Drew Our Attention To Para No. 7.2 Of The Impugned Order Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Observed That The Appeal Was Fixed For Hearing Time To Time & That Shri Shantilal Vora, Director Of Assessee Appeared For Hearing Time To Time & Requested For Adjournments Which Were Granted But He Could Neither Make Any

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 147

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

New Metal Refinery India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2614/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2614 To 2616/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) New Metal Refinery India बनाम/ Dcit-5(1)(2) Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Vs. 132, Appa Building, S.V.P. Line, Mumbai-400020. Road, Null Bazar, Mumbai- 400004. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcn9710C (अपीलधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Rajesh S. Shah Revenue By: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/07/2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 22.01.2019 For A.Y. 2009- 10, 2010-11 & 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Pointed Out That The Impugned Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is An Exparte Order, Even Though In The Cause-Title Of The Impugned Order, It Is Shown That Shri Shantilal Vora, Director Have Appeared For The Assessee. In Order To Demonstrate That It Was An Exparte Order, He Drew Our Attention To Para No. 7.2 Of The Impugned Order Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Observed That The Appeal Was Fixed For Hearing Time To Time & That Shri Shantilal Vora, Director Of Assessee Appeared For Hearing Time To Time & Requested For Adjournments Which Were Granted But He Could Neither Make Any

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 147

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

India Medtronic Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10 (1)91), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.54 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7935/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 7935/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2015-16) India Medtronic Private Limited, 1241, Solitaire Corporate Park, Bldg.No.12, 4Th Floor, Andheri-Ghatkopar Link Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 093 Pan:Aaaci-4227-Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-10(1)(1), Room No.209, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajan R. Vora, C.A With Shri Nikhil Tiwari ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Yogesh Kamath, Cit-Dr With S/Shri Satya Pinisetty/R.A.Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Assessment Order Dated 25/10/2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’].

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. Vora, C.A with Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamath, CIT-DR with S/Shri Satya Pinisetty/R.A.Dhyani
Section 143(3)

section 37(1) of the Act. However, the deduction claimed by the assessee was disallowed by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). While deciding the appeal, though, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Departmental Authorities in holding that the payment made towards non-compete

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Atul Properties, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 4394/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4393 & 4394/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2010-11 & 2011-12) Acit-24(1) बिधम/ M/S. Atul Properties Room No.604, Piramal 501-502, Trade Avenue, Off Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Suren Road, Western Express Mumbai-400012. Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamfa3756F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Damor (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain & Ms. Carmi Shroff सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeal Preferred By Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-36, Mumbai Dated 29.12.2017 For A.Y.2010-11 & 2011- 12 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor (DR)
Section 80Section 801B(10)

return filed by it. Head notes of the case is reproduced herein below: Section 251, read with section 254, of the IT Act, 1961- Commissioner(Appeals)Powers of -AY-2004-05-whether an assessee is entitled to raise before appellate authorities additional grounds in terms of additional claims not made ... have heard the submissions at bar at length. We have also perused the opposite view expressed by the Commissioner (Appeals), in his judgment. In the said judgment, he opined that the explanation to Section 80-IB(10)(a)(ii) of the Act must be strictly construed. He rejected the respondent

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Atul Properties, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 4393/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4393 & 4394/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2010-11 & 2011-12) Acit-24(1) बिधम/ M/S. Atul Properties Room No.604, Piramal 501-502, Trade Avenue, Off Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Suren Road, Western Express Mumbai-400012. Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamfa3756F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Damor (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain & Ms. Carmi Shroff सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeal Preferred By Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-36, Mumbai Dated 29.12.2017 For A.Y.2010-11 & 2011- 12 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor (DR)
Section 80Section 801B(10)

return filed by it. Head notes of the case is reproduced herein below: Section 251, read with section 254, of the IT Act, 1961- Commissioner(Appeals)Powers of -AY-2004-05-whether an assessee is entitled to raise before appellate authorities additional grounds in terms of additional claims not made ... have heard the submissions at bar at length. We have also perused the opposite view expressed by the Commissioner (Appeals), in his judgment. In the said judgment, he opined that the explanation to Section 80-IB(10)(a)(ii) of the Act must be strictly construed. He rejected the respondent