“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)

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

ITA 2970/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

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)

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 2943/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

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)

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

ITA 2894/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

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)

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

ITA 2893/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR

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

Birendra Singh Nirbhay, Sirsi Road Jaipur Rajasthan vs. ITO Ward 3(1) Jaipur, Ncrb Income Tax Department Statue Circle Jaipur Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 132(4)Section 69C

appeal. It is worthwhile to mention that as per section 250 (5) and Section (6) of the act, which state that: (4) The Commissioner (Appeals) may make further enquiry or direct the assessing officer to undertake further inquiry before disposing of the appeal and reports the results of the inquiry ... commissioner (Appeals) (6) The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) shall state the point of determination, decision and the reasons for such decision while disposing of the appeal in writing. From the plain reading of the above sections, the CIT (A) shall, by himself or through an assessing officer, make

Bhawani Developers, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-4(1), Lucknow-New

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid

ITA 253/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 68

section 251(1) of I. T. Act, which are reproduced below for the ease of reference: Section-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 ... reason for the decision. (7) On the disposal of the appeal, the [Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals) shall communicate the order passed by him to the assessee and to the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. Section 251 (1) In disposing

Parikh Amitkumar Mahendrabhai, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1199/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Parikh Amitkumar Mahendrabhai The Dcit 6, Alaknanda Society Circle 1(1)(1) Sama, Vadodara 390 008. Vadodara. Pan : Acppp 2527 G (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Pate, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Pate, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr.DR

Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 271(1)(b)Section 54

relevance of these documents. These papers, which form part of the paper book, were not duly considered by the Assessing Officer or by the Commissioner (Appeals), but they are material for determining the assessee’s eligibility for deduction under section 54. 4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions ... letter dated 20.10.2015, the construction agreement dated 13.12.2017, and the registered sale deed dated 15.12.2017, which were not before the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals). As these documents directly establish the contractual and legal rights of the assessee in the residential unit, a limited verification is necessary to reconcile

Maruti Nivrutti Bhujbal, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 14(1), Pune

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

ITA 485/PUN/2025[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50C

without properly considering the appropriate fair market value of the property adopted in similar facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in rejecting the claim that the property was owned by the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and not solely by the appellant in his individual capacity ... Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the cost of acquisition as on 01.04. 1981 at ₹161.40 per square metre without considering valid evidence from the appellant and that available on record 8. The order passed by the lower authorities is bad in law and liable to be set aside

Bajaj Housing Finance Limited, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-8(1), Pune

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

ITA 1608/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Respondent: Appellant by Shri Nikhil Mutha

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 270A(9)

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 ... income determined on the basis of an estimate, if the accounts are correct and complete to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner, as the case may be, but the method employed is such that the income cannot properly

Jap Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(2) Previously ACIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1609/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Khandhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 250Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

submissions made thereon. It is seen that the order of the learned Jap Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2011-12 - 2– Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, was passed on 13.10.2023, and the period for filing appeal before the Tribunal expired on 13.12.2023. The assessee, however, filed the present appeal

A R Udyog, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward 46(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1166/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 68

claim for deduction was made before the Assessing Officer. [Para 17] Page | 9 I.T.A, No.: 1166/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 AR Udyog. a The Commissioner (Appeals) has also given a finding against the assessee, stating that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and source of the purchases and confirmed ... involvement in the modus operandi. It is viewed that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified after giving such a finding that the additions should be restricted only to 12.5 per cent of such purchases and not entire purchases. The issue before the Commissioner (Appeals) was not whether the profit disclosed

Geetanjali Exports, Mumbai vs. 24(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3283/MUM/2024[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2025AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankargeetanjali Exports., 103, Madhupuri Shopping Centre, Vallabhbhai Road, Vile Parle West, Mumbai - 400056 ............... Appellant Pan: Aaafg3712D

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 250(6)

that in CIT v/s Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), reported in [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay), the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court held that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. Consequently, we deem it fit and proper

Jayantibhai Dahyabhai Patel, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Faceless Assessment Unit

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 408/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat07 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Jayantibhai Dahyabhai Patel, Ito, New Delhi, 283, Padm Punj, Siddhanth Bharuch-392001. Nagar Soceity, Gujarat Housing Vs. Board, Bharuch-392001. Pan No. Aebpp 3770 P Appellant Respondent : None For Assessee Assessee By : Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. Dr Revenue By : 06/10/2025 Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None for

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

under this Act, - A) such person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to be false, or (B) such person offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate

Sanjay Jayantilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 79/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2014-2015 Sanjay Jayantilal Shah Ito, Ward-2(1)(1) 202/A, Shivalik 10 Vs. Vejalpur Opp: Sbi Zonal Office Ahmedabad. Ambawadi, Ahmedabad 380 015 Pan : Aktps 8891 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, Ars. : Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"], For The Assessment Year 2014–15, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 31.03.2022 Passed U/S 147 Read With Section 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Assessing Officer Or Ao"].

Section 10(38)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

compliance with statutory notices. Relying upon the newly inserted proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act, effective from 01.10.2024, which empowers the Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside an assessment made under section 144 and remit the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication ... proper appreciation, it is necessary to notice the scheme of section 251 of the Act. Section 251(1) provides the powers of the Commissioner (Appeals) in disposing of an appeal. As per clause (a), in an appeal against an order of assessment, the CIT(A) may confirm, reduce, enhance