“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)

Rakesh Jayantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 41(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3189/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 250Section 68

deposits in joint account and, therefore, treated that amount as belonging to assessee and made addition to income of assessee as unexplained moneys/investment - Commissioner (Appeals) found that funds in joint account did not belong to assessee and that it belonged only to ‘Y’ and accordingly deleted addition - Whether there

Rakesh Jayantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 41(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3188/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 250Section 68

Rakesh Jayantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 41(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3168/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 250Section 68

Rakesh Jayantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. 41(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3167/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 250Section 68

Shot Formats Digital Productions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 16(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6879/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Respondent: Mr. Dinesh Kureja a/w

Section 68

enclosed herewith as Exhibit B] disposed off the petition disposed off the petition with a direction to the Commissioner with a direction to the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the appeal within 3 months without any (Appeals) to dispose of the appeal within 3 months without any (Appeals) to dispose ... December 2024, that the Appellant 14, Thus it is only on 20 December 2024, that the Appellant became aware that the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) became aware that the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) became aware that the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was disposed off on 21 March

The Mayani Urban Co Op Bank Ltd, Satara vs. DCIT, Circle Satara

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

ITA 1930/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1930/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Mayani Urban Co-Op. Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Satara. Bank Ltd., Tal: Khatav Dist.: Satara, Mayani, A/P Mayani- 415102. Pan : Aaaat7489H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Harish Bist (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.07.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming Penalty U/S 270A(9) Of Rs.151140/- Without Appreciating The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Penalty U/S 270A Is Not Justified At 200%.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Harish Bist (Virtual)

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(9)

section (6) of section 270A, which is as under :- “Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income. 270A. (1) The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, during the course of any proceedings under this Act, direct that any person who has under- reported ... include the following, namely:— (a) the amount of income in respect of which the assessee offers an explanation and the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner, as the case may be, is satisfied that the explanation is bona fide and the assessee

Capgemini Technology Services India Limited ( Successor of Aricent Technologies Holdings Limited), Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1260/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vyomesh PathakFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155(18)Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(7)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)

extract section 270A & 270AA of the Act herein below: 270A. Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income. (1)The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, during the course of any proceedings under this Act, direct that any person who has under-reported ... include the following, namely:— (a)the amount of income in respect of which the assessee offers an explanation and the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner, as the case may be, is satisfied that the explanation is bona fide and the assessee

Mandhatasinhji Manoharsinhji Jadeja, Mumbai vs. The Circle 19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5579/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am Mandhatasinhji M. Jadeja Circle 19(1), Mumbai 12, Floor-5, 51 – Narendra Bhuvan, Vs. Cumballa Hill, Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, CA (Virtually appear)For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2021-22. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi erred in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant ex-parte. 2. On merits, the learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless ... thereby levying taxes at rates u/s 115BBE of the Act. Mandhatasinhji M. Jadeja 3. On merits, the learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, erred in upholding the action of Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 21,80,581/- to the returned income of the Appellant without

Abdul Hamid Abdul Majid Nathani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 22(1), Mumbai, Maharashtra

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2528/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalabdul Hamid Abdul Majid Nathani Flat No.3102, 31St Floor Kalapataru Heights, Dr. A.L. Nair Road Agripada, Mumbai - 400011 ............... Appellant Pan: Aabpn1625K V/S Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, – 22(1), Mumbai ……………… Respondent Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 3Section 68

Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer ('AO') in reopening the assessment of the Assessee u/s 147 of the Income ... learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of learned AO in initiating reassessment proceedings without appreciating the fact that no income of the appellant chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. There was no reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. 3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals

Varunendra Narayan Deekshit, Pune vs. CIT(A), Pune

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

ITA 988/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Agiwal

Section 10Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(3)

brought to its notice by the assessee or by the deductor or by the collector, and where the authority concerned is 24[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals), by the Assessing Officer also. (3) An amendment, which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or reducing a refund

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Southern Agrifurane Industries Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1819/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1817 To 1819/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2020-21 To 2022-23

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ,चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH: CHENNΑΙ श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Southern Agrifurane Industries Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1818/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1817 To 1819/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2020-21 To 2022-23 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1550 To 1552/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2020-21 To 2022-23 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 08.10.2025 : 21.11.2025 ::2 ::

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

ITA 1552/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1817 To 1819/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2020-21 To 2022-23 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1550 To 1552/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2020-21 To 2022-23 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 08.10.2025 : 21.11.2025 ::2 ::

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the

ITA 1551/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

such, there was no proof for such huge purchase forthcoming from the assessee. The proof adduced had been rejected as stated above. The Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the claim of wastage of 4.50 per cent as on the higher side, however, it was found with the available material that

Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

ITA 1550/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1817 To 1819/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2020-21 To 2022-23 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1550 To 1552/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2020-21 To 2022-23 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 08.10.2025 : 21.11.2025 ::2 ::

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

Sukhsagar Co Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 32(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4336/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Kale, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Chandra, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4336/M/2025 Assessment

Lm Wind Power As, Denmark vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4280/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Lm Wind Power As, Vs, Acit, Circle Juptervej 6, 6000 Kolding, International Tax 2(2)(1), Denmark – 999999. Delhi (Pan :Aabcl8590Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Aditya Vohra, Advocate Shri Arpitgoyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Acit, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (He Act") For Assessment Year 2020-21 Assessing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.81,14, 14,893 Is Bad In Law, Void- Ab-Initio & Therefore, Liable To Be Quashed And/ Or Set Aside.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 271ASection 44DSection 5Section 92C

report such transaction which he is required to do so; or (iii) maintains or furnishes an incorrect information or document, the Assessing Officer or Commissioner (Appeals) may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to two per cent of the value of each international

Gold Spice Impex, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-47(2), Delhi

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

ITA 2244/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarm/S. Gold Spice Impex, Vs. Ito, Ward 47 (2), 1879, Kucha Chelian, Khari Boali, Delhi. Delhi – 110 006. (Pan : Aapfg0688P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 17.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao In Making Aggregate Addition Of Rs.1,15,00,000/- On Account Of Cash Deposits U/S 68 & Taxing The Same U/S 115Bbe & That Too By Recording Incorrect Facts & Findings & Without Following The Principles Of Natural Justice.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 234BSection 68

Power regarding discovery, production of evidence, etc. The [Assessing Officer] [ Substituted by Act 4 of 1988, Section 2, for certain words (w.e.f. 1.4.1988).] [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] [Substituted by Act 4 of 1988, Section 2, for certain words (w.e.f. 1.4.1988).], [Joint Commissioner] [ Substituted by Act 21 of 1998, Section ... Deputy Commissioner" (w.e.f. 1.10.1998).][, Commissioner (Appeals)] [Inserted by Act 29 of 1977, Section 39 and Schedule V (w.e.f. 10.7.1978).][, Chief Commissioner or Commissioner and the Dispute Resolution Panel referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (15) of section 144-C] [ Substituted by Act 33 of 2009, Section

Lucknow Educational and Social Welfare Society, Lucknow vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 314/LKW/2025[2020-21]Status: FixedITAT Lucknow20 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Shri Brahma Prakash Singh, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 94, Vaishali Enclave, Sector-9, Indira Income Tax-2, Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow Pan: Ajmps4451L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dharmendra Kumar, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit-2, Lucknow Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act On 14.03.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That Revision Proceeding Initiated U/S 263 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 By Learned Pr. Cit-2. Lucknow Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 2. That Since Assessment Order Passed By The Ao Was Not Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue, Hence Revision Order Passed By Ld. Pr. Cit-2, Lucknow Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 3. That Ld.Ao Had Examined The Issue & After Being Satisfied By The Documentary Evidences & Explanations Furnished By Appellant, Passed Assessment Order, Hence Revision Order, Cancelling The Assessment Order Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 4. That Where An Order Passed By Ao Is Subject To An Appeal That Had Been Filed, Then Commissioner Cannot Invoke Power Under Section 263 In Such Matters, Which Are Agitated In Such Appeal. Since Issue Under Appeal Before Commissioner (Appeals) & Revision Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Same, Hence, Revision Order Passed By Commissioner Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 5. That The Appellant Seeks Permission To Modify And/Or Add Any Other Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal As The Circumstances Of The Case Might Require Or Justify.”

For Appellant: Sh. Dharmendra Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 263

been filed, then Commissioner cannot invoke power under section 263 in such matters, which are agitated in such appeal. Since issue under appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and revision order passed under section 263 is same, hence, revision order passed by Commissioner is illegal and without jurisdiction. 5. That the appellant ... Officer was in appeal before ld. CIT(A) and as per the provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act, the Commissioner (Appeals) had the powers in an appeal against an order of assessment to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment. Therefore, when an appeal was pending before

Alok Kumar, Madhepura vs. ITO Ward 3(5), Saharsa

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

ITA 467/PAT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraalok Kumar, Ito Ward-3(5), S/O Sri Dasrath Mehata, Saharsha Village- Ganeshpur, M.S. Vs Yogiraj, Purani Madhepura, Dist- Madhepura – 852116 (Bihar) (Pan: Bpkpk1186D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : K.P. Jalan, Ar Respondent By : Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 14.05.2024. 2 Alok Kumar, Ay: 2012-13 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: K.P. Jalan, ARFor Respondent: Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 292BSection 54F

taxmann.com 348 (Madras) it has been held that a speaking order on merits with reasons and findings is to be passed by Commissioner (Appeals) on basis of ground raised in assessee's appeal; he cannot dispose the assessee's appeal merely by holding that the 5 Alok Kumar