← 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)

Deepak Kakubhai Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

ITA 6509/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2016-17
Section 1Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 30Section 56

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Deepak Kakubhai Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6508/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 1Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 30Section 56

additions made for these years are liable to be deleted on this jurisdictional ground alone. Nevertheless, since the Assessing Officer and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) have dealt with the merits of the additions at considerable length, and since extensive submissions have been advanced before us on merits as well

Deepak Kakubhai Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

ITA 6507/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2014-15
Section 1Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 56Section 69

additions made for these years are liable to be deleted on this jurisdictional ground alone. Nevertheless, since the Assessing Officer and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) have dealt with the merits of the additions at considerable length, and since extensive submissions have been advanced before us on merits as well ... additions made for these years are liable to be deleted on this jurisdictional ground alone. Nevertheless, since the Assessing Officer and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) have dealt with the merits of the additions at considerable length, and since extensive submissions have been advanced before us on merits as well

Deepak Kakubhai Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

ITA 6506/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2013-14
Section 1Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 4Section 56

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Deepak Kakubhai Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle - 4(1), Mumbai

ITA 6505/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2012-13
Section 1Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 56Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Murtuza Kothari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, ground nos. 1 & 2 of the assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 4080/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Otwani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 48Section 49Section 50CSection 54

from the date the assessee is put in possession thereof after its completion. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer and direct him to take the value of the flat

Icici Securities Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai -4, Mumbai

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

ITA 3766/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80G

view these discussions and considering the judicial precedence in this regard, it is viewed that there is no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in allowing the deduction under section 80G to the assessee towards donations made to Reliance Foundation and Shyam Kothari Foundation. Accordingly the grounds raised

Income Tax Officer, Varanasi vs. Neonatal Health Academy, Varanasi

In the result, for statistical purposes, both appeals are partly allowed

ITA 132/VNS/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi05 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 270

provisions of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, reproduced below for the ease of reference: Rule 46(A) (3) The 84[Joint Commissioner] (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)] shall not take into account any evidence produced under sub-rule (1) unless the Assessing

Income Tax Officer, Varanasi vs. Neonatal Health Academy, Varanasi

In the result, for statistical purposes, both appeals are partly allowed

ITA 131/VNS/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi05 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 270

provisions of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, reproduced below for the ease of reference: Rule 46(A) (3) The 84[Joint Commissioner] (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)] shall not take into account any evidence produced under sub-rule (1) unless the Assessing

Rajat Kumar Gupta, Ramanujganj, Balrampur vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Ambikapur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 737/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 736 & 737/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Rajat Kumar Gupta, V Income Tax Officer-1, Near Power House Road, S Kharsiya Marg, Tatapani, Ramanujganj, S.O., Near Ambika Petrol Pump, Surguja- 497220, C.G. Ambikapur-497335, C.G. Pan: Bpfpg5887N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) . . िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 05.01.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: Since Facts, Grounds & Issues Involved Therein Are Common & Identical; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together For Adjudication By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69Section 69A

Provided that, [in a case falling under clause (b) and] on an application made by the appellant in this behalf, the {"**] [Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] [Commissioner (Appeals)] may, for any Rajat Kumar Gupta Vs ITO-1, Ambikapur good and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing, exempt him from ... Centre. (3) The appeal unit referred to in clause (iii) of sub-paragraph (1) shall have the following authorities, namely: – (a) one or more Commissioner(Appeals); (b) such other income-tax authority, ministerial staff, executive or consultant to assist the Commissioner (Appeals) as considered necessary by the Board. Rajat Kumar

Rajat Kumar Gupta, Surguja, Ambikapur vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Ambikapur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 736/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 736 & 737/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Rajat Kumar Gupta, V Income Tax Officer-1, Near Power House Road, S Kharsiya Marg, Tatapani, Ramanujganj, S.O., Near Ambika Petrol Pump, Surguja- 497220, C.G. Ambikapur-497335, C.G. Pan: Bpfpg5887N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) . . िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 05.01.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: Since Facts, Grounds & Issues Involved Therein Are Common & Identical; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together For Adjudication By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69Section 69A

Provided that, [in a case falling under clause (b) and] on an application made by the appellant in this behalf, the {"**] [Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] [Commissioner (Appeals)] may, for any Rajat Kumar Gupta Vs ITO-1, Ambikapur good and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing, exempt him from ... Centre. (3) The appeal unit referred to in clause (iii) of sub-paragraph (1) shall have the following authorities, namely: – (a) one or more Commissioner(Appeals); (b) such other income-tax authority, ministerial staff, executive or consultant to assist the Commissioner (Appeals) as considered necessary by the Board. Rajat Kumar

Maharshi Karve Stree Shikshan Sansthas Employees Coop Society Ltd, Pune vs. ITO Easssessment Center, Delhi

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

ITA 668/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anand KhandewaleFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal without adhering to the fundamental principles of procedural and natural justice.  Failure to Call for Documents: The Commissioner (Appeals) did not request specific documents during the appellate proceedings, thereby restricting the appellant's ability to substantiate its claims. The notices issued were identical ... personal hearing is a violation of natural justice and procedural fairness, as established in judicial pronouncements.  Failure to Consider Previous Assessment: The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the assessment order for AY 2017- 18, where the assessee's income was accepted without any addition and there was no change

M/S. Shakambhari Ispat & Power Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Kolkata

ITA 931/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020
For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148

Calcutta High Court upheld the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal by observing as follows: "The assessee's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) failed and by an order of August 25, 2014, the assessment order of March 28, 2013 was upheld. The Commissioner looked into the facts, the statements made ... assessee subsequently claimed had been lost or destroyed and, in respect whereof, no complaint had been lodged by the assessee. On facts, the Commissioner (Appeals) found no grounds to interfere with the quantum of excess stocks discovered by the assessing officer in course of the survey. The Commissioner also agreed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(1), Kolkata vs. Shakambhari Ispat & Power Limited, Kolkata

ITA 1591/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148

Calcutta High Court upheld the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal by observing as follows: "The assessee's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) failed and by an order of August 25, 2014, the assessment order of March 28, 2013 was upheld. The Commissioner looked into the facts, the statements made ... assessee subsequently claimed had been lost or destroyed and, in respect whereof, no complaint had been lodged by the assessee. On facts, the Commissioner (Appeals) found no grounds to interfere with the quantum of excess stocks discovered by the assessing officer in course of the survey. The Commissioner also agreed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Shakambhari Ispat & Power Limited, Kolkata

ITA 1561/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2020-21
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148

Calcutta High Court upheld the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal by observing as follows: "The assessee's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) failed and by an order of August 25, 2014, the assessment order of March 28, 2013 was upheld. The Commissioner looked into the facts, the statements made ... assessee subsequently claimed had been lost or destroyed and, in respect whereof, no complaint had been lodged by the assessee. On facts, the Commissioner (Appeals) found no grounds to interfere with the quantum of excess stocks discovered by the assessing officer in course of the survey. The Commissioner also agreed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Shakambhari Ispat & Power Limited, Kolkata

ITA 1560/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148

Calcutta High Court upheld the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal by observing as follows: "The assessee's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) failed and by an order of August 25, 2014, the assessment order of March 28, 2013 was upheld. The Commissioner looked into the facts, the statements made ... assessee subsequently claimed had been lost or destroyed and, in respect whereof, no complaint had been lodged by the assessee. On facts, the Commissioner (Appeals) found no grounds to interfere with the quantum of excess stocks discovered by the assessing officer in course of the survey. The Commissioner also agreed

D.C.I.T., CC - 3(1), Kolkata vs. Shakambhari Ispat & Power Limited, Kolkata

ITA 1541/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148

Calcutta High Court upheld the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal by observing as follows: "The assessee's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) failed and by an order of August 25, 2014, the assessment order of March 28, 2013 was upheld. The Commissioner looked into the facts, the statements made ... assessee subsequently claimed had been lost or destroyed and, in respect whereof, no complaint had been lodged by the assessee. On facts, the Commissioner (Appeals) found no grounds to interfere with the quantum of excess stocks discovered by the assessing officer in course of the survey. The Commissioner also agreed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Shakambhari Ispat & Power Limited, Kolkata

ITA 1515/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148

Calcutta High Court upheld the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal by observing as follows: "The assessee's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) failed and by an order of August 25, 2014, the assessment order of March 28, 2013 was upheld. The Commissioner looked into the facts, the statements made ... assessee subsequently claimed had been lost or destroyed and, in respect whereof, no complaint had been lodged by the assessee. On facts, the Commissioner (Appeals) found no grounds to interfere with the quantum of excess stocks discovered by the assessing officer in course of the survey. The Commissioner also agreed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3.1, Kolkata vs. Shakambhari Ispat & Power Limited, Kolkata

ITA 1436/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148

Calcutta High Court upheld the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal by observing as follows: "The assessee's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) failed and by an order of August 25, 2014, the assessment order of March 28, 2013 was upheld. The Commissioner looked into the facts, the statements made ... assessee subsequently claimed had been lost or destroyed and, in respect whereof, no complaint had been lodged by the assessee. On facts, the Commissioner (Appeals) found no grounds to interfere with the quantum of excess stocks discovered by the assessing officer in course of the survey. The Commissioner also agreed

M/S. Shakambhari Ispat & Power Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Kolkata

ITA 1198/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2021-2022
For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148

Calcutta High Court upheld the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal by observing as follows: "The assessee's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) failed and by an order of August 25, 2014, the assessment order of March 28, 2013 was upheld. The Commissioner looked into the facts, the statements made ... assessee subsequently claimed had been lost or destroyed and, in respect whereof, no complaint had been lodged by the assessee. On facts, the Commissioner (Appeals) found no grounds to interfere with the quantum of excess stocks discovered by the assessing officer in course of the survey. The Commissioner also agreed