“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)

Ashok Rudraraju, Visakhapatnam vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 439/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 439/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ashok Rudraraju, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aqvpr4058L

For Appellant: Shri I. Kama Sastry, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151(1)Section 151ASection 251(1)(a)Section 69A

been made by AO needs to be examined separately. 6.3 As per the newly inserted proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act, Commissioner (Appeals) in case of order of assessment made u/s. 144 of the Act. may set aside such assessment and refer the case back ... said proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act is reproduced as under: "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, Provided that where

Attu Purattu Ismail, Thalassery vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kannur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 812/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Attupurattu Ismail .......... Appellant Attupuratt House, Thalassesry, Kannur 670676 [Pan: Abfbi7471M] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kannur ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Ananthakrishnan R. Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) Dated 01.09.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. The Return Of Income For Ay 2013-14 Was Filed On 22.03.2014 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs. 2,63,300/-. The Search & Seizure Operations U/S. 132 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Conducted In The Business Premises Of Parco Group Of Concerns

For Appellant: Shri Ananthakrishnan R. CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

reads as under: - “Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. 271. (1) If the Assessing Officer or the 98[Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer vs. Vijeta Lodha, Jaipur

58. As a result, the impugned order by Learned CIT(A) deleting the

ITA 390/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, C.A. (through V.C.)For Respondent: None

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

persons to whom the transactions were done, have to necessarily fail. In such factual scenario, the Assessing Officers as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) have adopted an inferential process which is found to be a process which would be followed by a reasonable and prudent person. The Assessing Officers ... Commissioner (Appeals) have culled out proximate facts in each of the cases, took into consideration the surrounding circumstances which came to light after the investigation, assessed the conduct of the assessee, took note of the proximity of the time between the buy and sale operations and also the sudden

Saugaat, Ambala Cantt vs. ITO, Ward 4, Ambala Cantt. (Assessment Unit), Ambala Cantt

ITA 443/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

appeal,— (b) where no such tax has been paid, the assessee has applied for exemption from the requirement of clause (a) and the Commissioner (Appeals) is satisfied that there was good and sufficient reason for not paying such tax.” 20. A bare perusal of the above provision makes it evident

Quiver Commercial (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1700/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward 1(2), Kolkata Quiver Commercial (P) Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, 3, Amartalla Street, Burrabazar, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700001, West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacq1349R Assessee By : Shri Giridhari Dhelia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Guru Bhashyam, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Giridhari Dhelia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bhashyam, DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

absence of any such finding, it is held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was utterly perverse and rightly interfered by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal re-appreciated the factual position and agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal apart from taking into consideration, the legal effect

Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2) Kalyan, Kalyan vs. Jaikumar Amarlalphagwani, Ulhasnagar

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6729/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2018-19 Income Tax Officer Ward Jaikumar 2(2) Kalyan Amarlalphagwani Income Tax Office Mohan Plaza Flat No. 703, 7Th Floor, Wayale Nagar Vs. Milan Palace A Wing Khemani, Nr Ruhani Satsang Hall Ulhasnagar, Mumbai- 421002 Pan: Amnpp8597Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Sunil Makhija A/W Ms. Manisha Ghind Revenue By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing : 22.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry:

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Makhija a/wFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr.D.R

Section 250Section 46A(3)

Assessee. 10.4 Further, in rule 46A(2) it is prescribed that no evidence shall be admitted under sub rule (1), unless the Commissioner (Appeals) records in writing the reasons for its admission. However, in the instant case, no such reason has been recorded by the Ld. 6 Jaikumar Amarlal Phagwani ... Commissioner, while admitting the additional evidences filed by the Assessee. 10.5 The provisions of section 46A(3) prescribes further that the Commissioner (Appeal) shall not take into account any evidence under sub rule (1), unless the AO has been allowed a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence or document produced

Dipak Dadaji Khairnar, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 1, Malegaon

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

ITA 1917/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17 Dipak Dadaji Khairnar Ito, Ward-1, Malegaon At Post Kotbel, Baglan, Vs. Nashik – 423204 Pan: Anipk9825E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi (Through Virtual) Department By : Smt N C Shilpa, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 17-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Joshi (through virtual)For Respondent: Smt N C Shilpa, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

appeal on merit as per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act which reads as under: “250….. …..…… (6) The order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon

Capricon Realty Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5696/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

BOMBAY in case of Pr. CIT vs. Tata Capital Ltd. [2024] 161 taxmann.com 557 (Bombay) dated 03/04/2024 has held that "The finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal are agreeable that though the Assessing Officer has stated that assessee's explanation is not acceptable, he has not given reasons

Jamir Ali, Kumarghat vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 60/GTY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Given The Following Findings:

Section 115BSection 250Section 271ASection 69A

payable should also be Rs. 0.00, and consequently, the penalty should also be Rs. 0.00. 4. That, Sir, as per the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the penalty calculation was as follows: Total Income added under Section 69A: 11,47,30,000.00 Tax payable under Section 115BBE (including surcharge & cess ... above facts, the assessee humbly prays for the following reliefs. I.T.A. No. 60/GTY/2025 Jamir Ali 1. That the penalty order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Income Tax Department, be set aside. 2. That the assessee be granted justice.” 2. On the last date of hearing, none attended on behalf

Arun Kumar Gupta, DCIT, Circle-1(3), Surat, Adajan vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Adarsh Nagar Society

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 779/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.778 & 779/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Circle - 1(3), 67, Adarsh Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat Surat - 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawpg3525A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250

also abstract of transactions furnished by the CSE. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, concurred with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the assessee had furnished complete details which were not found false or bogus by the Assessing Officer and that it was only on suspicion

Arun Kumar Gupta, DCIT, Circle-1(3), Surat, Adajan vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Adarsh Nagar Society

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 778/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 250

Navdeep Medical Store, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1322/AHD/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Khakhhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Trading Account and further making the addition on account of 'cash deposits' would amount to double addition. 2.2) The confirmation of addition by the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of cash deposits out of regular sales of the assessee as per audited books of accounts is against the facts and circumstances ... case and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition as made by the assessing officer only on surmises and conjectures. 2.3) That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that due to the nature of business, where the sales of Medicine in retail and cash deposits

The Sangli Salary Earners Co Op Society Ltd, Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3 Sangli, Sangli

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2254/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2254/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Sangli Salary Earners Co V The Income Tax Officer, Op Society Ltd., S. Ward-3, Sangli. 1104 B, Harbhat Road, Main City, Sangli – 416416 Pan: Aaaat0980D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Amit Sudhir Shintre(Virtual) Revenue By Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain-Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21, Dated 27.08.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Read With Section 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 26.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Relying On The Decision Of Totgars Co-

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

grounds, and in the alternative, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) have erred in not allowing deduction of proportionate expenditure u/s 57 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, against the interest income

Sunil Daulatrao Dhonde, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Pune

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

ITA 1639/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S. Bhandari (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2Section 270ASection 270A(2)(b)Section 274

section 270A of the IT. Act, 1961 are re-produced hereunder 270A Definitions. Penalty for under-reporting. 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

Simrah Builders, Aligarh vs. DCIT4(1)(1) Aligarh, Aligarh

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

ITA 151/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 151ASection 250Section 251Section 68

Appeals), the relevant part of section 251(2) of the Act reads as under : “251. (1) xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx (2) The Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals), as the case may be, shall not enhance an assessment or a penalty or reduce the amount of refund unless

M/S R D Construction, Bhilai vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Bhilai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 640/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.640/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. R D Construction Shikshit Nagar, Near Bus Stand, Bhilai Marshalling Yard, Charoda, Bhilai-490 025 (C.G.) Pan: Aajfr3698E

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(1)

Section 270A of the Act which reads as follows: “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

ACIT 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Glorishine Impex Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 2209/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 43(5)Section 72

reporting” and “misreporting" of income and provides a structured, objective regime of penalty. Sub section (1) authorises imposition of penalty where the Assessing Officer, Commissioner (Appeals) or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, in the course of proceedings, finds that any person has under reported his income. Sub section (2) then proceeds

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 1178/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271DSection 271E

shall be passed- (a) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject matter of an appeal to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or to the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 or section 245A or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 253, after the expiry ... imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, of six months from the end of the month in which the order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) or as the case may be the Appellate Tribunal is received by the Principal Commissioner of Commissioner, whichever period expires

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

ITA 1177/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271DSection 271E

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 1176/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271DSection 271E