“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, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Sapna Karnani, Tonk Phatak

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 709/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT, DR

Section 127Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69C

limiting the time within which any action for assessment, reassessment or re computation may be taken. 251. (1) In disposing of an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall have the following powers— (1) In disposing of an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall have the following powers— (a) in an appeal against ... other case, he may pass such orders in the appeal as he thinks fit. (1A) In disposing of an appeal, the Joint 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

M/S Ankur Developers & Realtors, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is rejected

ITA 428/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 132Section 68

reproduced as under: Power regarding discovery, production of evidence, etc. 81 131. (1) The 82[Assessing] Officer, 83[Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)], 84[Joint Commissioner] 85[, Joint Commissioner (Appeals)] 86[, Commissioner (Appeals)] 87[, 88[Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or 88[Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner and the Dispute Resolution Panel

Labhuben Kiranbhai Ratoja, Rajkot vs. ITO WD 1(2)(4), Rajkot

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

ITA 434/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.434/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) बनाम/ Labhuben Kiranbhai Ratoja, Income Tax Officer, Chamunda Krupa, 9 Ward-1(2)(4), Vs. Ranchhodnagar Society, Rajkot Gujarat-360003 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akapr3388L (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ" /Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Assessee By Shri Bakul Ganatra, Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 25/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 13/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (In Short “Nfac”), Delhi Dated 07.06.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Dated 15.12.2019. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows:

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 15.12.2019. 2. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1.The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the order of Ld. Income Tax Officer Wd. 1(2)(4), Rajkot that ... assessable as cash credit of the assessee under section 68 of the Act. Labhuben K. Ratoja 2.The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the order of Ld. Income Tax Officer Wd. 1(2)(4), Rajkot that the addition of Rs. 1,08,83,000/- under the head income

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Niranjan Patidar, Neemuch

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 438/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure Allowability of (Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further ... held that purchases made by appellant was acceptable and disallowance was to be deleted - Tribunal dismissed revenue's appeal - High Court affirmed judgments of Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal being concurrent factual findings - Whether no substantial question of law arose from impugned order of Tribunal - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour

M/S. Educational Concepts Innovators International, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bengaluru

Accordingly all these additional grounds are dismissed

ITA 19/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Sri M. Monish Sowkar, A.R

Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 44A

ITA No.19/Bang/2025 M/s. Educational Concepts Innovators International, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A"BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM

DCIT CC-8(4), Mumbai vs. Oscar Infra Private Limited, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 847/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankardcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. Oscar Infra Pvt Ltd Room No. 659, 6Th Floor, Office No. 707, 7Th Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road Floor, Everest Nivara, Churchgate, Mumbai – Infotech Park, Plot No. 400020. D/3, Ttc Industrial Area, Midc Pan/Gir No. Aabco0152H (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 70(2)

Appellate Tribunal. After detailed discussion, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has recorded the following findings of fact: "The above findings recorded by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) are quite exhaustive whereby he has discussed the basis on which the Assessing Officer had made the additions While allowing relief to the assessee ... learned Commissioner (Appeals) has specifically held that there is no adverse comment in the form of general and specific statement by the principal officer of the stock exchange or by the company whose shares were involved in these transactions and he held that the Assessing Officer only quoted the facts

Bharat Kumar Jaishinh Soni, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 42(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4261/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 270ASection 270A(9)

observations and the subsequent Notification dated 24 May 2023 enhancing the exemption limit to ₹ 25 lakhs with effect from 1 April 2023, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the assessee’s reliance thereon was misplaced and that he was fully aware of his ineligibility as a PSU employee. The penalty ... reasonable and bona fide, supported by contemporaneous judicial precedent and subsequent legislative recognition. The penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals) therefore cannot be upheld. 15. Accordingly, the penalty of ₹ 5,51,016 levied under section 270A(9) is hereby deleted, and the appeal

Mohammed Rauf Farook Khan, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Thane

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 4015/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhukeshwar Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri,(Sr. AR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

mandate of section 250(6) of the Act. The same is reproduced here under for your ready reference: "(6) The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision

Shree Gurudev Datta Mandir Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee isallowed in above terms for statistical purposes

ITA 2499/MUM/2025[N.A ]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanshree Gurudev Datta Mandir Cit(Exemptions)/Ito Trust Ward 2(3), Datta Mandir Compound, Datta Vs. R. No. 601, 6Th Floor, Cumbulla Mandir Road, Vakola Pipeline, Hill, Mtnl Building, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Cumballa Hill, Mumbai, Pan: Aaats8130R Maharashtra – 400 026

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

taxmann.com 548 (Guj.) (10.09.2024) has also dealt with the issue "wherein the Form 10B was filed during the course of appellate proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the benefit of section 11 of the Act to the Assessee" and the Tribunal upheld the said decision of the Ld. Commissioner

Ratan Bhaubali Bhalwankar, Mumbai vs. ACIT-16(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1808/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarmr. Ratan Bahubali V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Bhalwankar बनाम Income Tax – 16(3), C/O – 2Nd Floor, Gita Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - Building, Sion Circle, 400021, Maharashtra Mumbai - 400 022, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacpb7285Q Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Margav Shukla, Adv and Shubham ShahFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri, (Sr. AR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

penny stock. The appeal of the respondent-assessee was allowed against the assessment order. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Against the appellate order the Revenue had filed the aforesaid income-tax appeal which has been dismissed by the Income- tax Appellate Tribunal. After ... detailed discussion, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has recorded the following findings of fact: "The above findings recorded by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) are quite exhaustive whereby he has discussed the basis on which the Assessing Officer had made the additions. While allowing relief to the assessee, the learned Commissioner

Devang Bhupendra Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 32(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4218/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankardevang Bhupendra Shah, V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – B/9, Neminath Apt., बनाम 32(1)(4), Kautilya Bhavan, Shimpoli Road, Borivali Bandra Kurla Complex, West, Mumbai – 400 092, Bandra (East), Mumbai– Maharashtra 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadps1211L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Kapadia,ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri, (Sr. AR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

Pratap Uttam Purohit rejected assessee's plea and made additions under sections 68 and 69 by relying on statements from 'entry operators' - On appeal. Commissioner (Appeals) accepted assessee's claim, noting that shares were purchased via Account Payee Cheques, held in a Demat Account for over 12 months, and sold ... through a recognized stock exchange after payment of security transaction tax Tribunal upheld Commissioner (Appeal)'s decision. emphasizing assessee's right to correct mistakes and criticized Assessing Officer's reliance on statements from 'entry operators to support additions under sections 68 and 69 as those statements were recorded in unrelated

Prakash Gupta, Gopalganj vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2 (4), Siwan

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

ITA 206/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

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 assessee's appeal merely by holding that Assessing Officer's order is a self

Pramila Agarwal, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2(5), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 531/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

partner – During relevant accounting period assessee received refund of sales-tax ITO held that said refund was assessable as income of assessee On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) held that since deduction was allowed to partnership firm, section 41(1) was not applicable and amount was not assessable as income of assessee ... relevant provisions of State Sales Tax Act and Rules to know as to who would be entitled to refund Accordingly, Tribunal remanded matter to Commissioner (Appeals) – However, a copy of dissolution deed was on record, which provided rights and liabilities of assessee Whether Tribunal could have easily looked into relevant

Sincere Architects Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Cirlce-7, Jaipur

In the result the appeal no

ITA 974/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 194A

which reads as under ; [Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income. 15270A. (1) The Assessing Officer or 16 [the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) 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 ... following, namely:- the amount of income in respect of which the assessee offers an explanation and the Assessing Officer or 20[the Joint Commissione (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner, as the case may be, is satisfied that the explanation is bona fide

Sincere Architects Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-7, Jaipur

In the result the appeal no

ITA 973/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 194A

which reads as under ; [Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income. 15270A. (1) The Assessing Officer or 16 [the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) 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 ... following, namely:- (a) the amount of income in respect of which the assessee offers an explanation and the Assessing Officer or 20[the Joint Commissione (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner, as the case may be, is satisfied that the explanation is bona fide

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Atul Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1774/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 271GSection 92CSection 92DSection 92D(3)

sufficient. The Legislature was conscious of this fact and, therefore, had specifically stipulated in Section 92D(3) that the Assessing Officer or Commissioner (Appeals) may require a person to furnish any information or document in respect thereof and on failure of the said person to furnish the documentation within

ACIT., Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. M/S Kmc Constructions Ltd, Hyderabad

ITA 731/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Madhya Pradesh in the case of Agarwal Warehousing and Leasing Ltd Vs. CIT [2002] 257 ITR 235 (MP) wherein it was held that "the Commissioner (Appeals) not only committed judicial impropriety but also erred in law in refusing to follow the order of the Tribunal". (iii). Hon'ble ITAT, Visakhapatnam

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 3173/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

interest within the meaning of Section 2(28A) and in terms of Section 194A, tax had to be deducted at source. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the same holding that the amount paid by the Board was not really interest within the meaning of Section 2(284) but actually

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 3160/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2971/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)