“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-2(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S Trishul Developers, Bengaluru

ITA 767/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292Section 69C

Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. as follows: FORM No. 35 [See rule 45 ] Appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) Designation:of the Commissioner (Appeals) – VI, BANGALORE No. ) of B. B of 272/CIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Trishul Developers, Bangalore

ITA 766/BANG/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292Section 69C

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Jaipur Sahakari Kraya Vikraya Samiti, Jaipur vs. I.T.O. Ward 5(2), Jaipur

ITA 991/JPR/2025[A.Y. 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2025

Bench: The Registry On 30-06-2025. By Way Of First Mentioned Appeal, Assessee Has Challenged Order Dated 18-03-2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2018-19, Whereby Appeal Filed By Assessee Challenging The Assessment Order Dated 31-03-2021 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Has Been Dismissed, As Not 2

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80P

served. 14. Sub-Section (3) of Section 249 provides that such an appeal may be admitted after expiration of prescribed period if the Commissioner (Appeals) is satisfied that appellant had sufficient cause in not presenting the same within the prescribed period of limitation. 15. As per Column No.14 of Form

Jaipur Sahakari Krya Vikraya Samiti, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD 5(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 990/JPR/2025[A.Y. 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2025

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80P

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Kanpur vs. Shri.Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

recorded so that proper action can be taken in correct hands to protect interest of revenue. 7.32 In Assessment year 2016-17 also the Commissioner (Appeal) made detailed observations in the matter of unsecured loan received from this creditor i.e. M/s. Cooper Commercial Pvt. Ltd. but no new facts could ... year under consideration. In this regard it is noteworthy that the department has filed appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeal) in Assessment year 2016-17 before Hon'ble I.T.A.T. and the order of Hon'ble I.T.A.T. is awaited. However following the judicial discipline, the appeal of this year

Mohd. Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur vs. Deputi Commissioner of Income Tax CC-2, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

Linga Naveenkumar, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 551/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.551/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Linga Naveenkumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 4(1) Pan:Aafpn0021P Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate K Prabhabati राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Tv Vamshidhar, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate K PrabhabatiFor Respondent: : Shri TV Vamshidhar, Sr.AR

Section 148

raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)/NFAC is erroneous and unsustainable on facts and in law. Page 1 of 10 ITA No 551 of 2025 Linga Naveenkumar 2. The learned

Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxn Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1217/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.Ashik Shah, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 133ASection 139Section 148Section 270A(2)Section 271(1)(c)

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

Redington Distributions Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxn Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1216/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.Ashik Shah, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 133ASection 139Section 148Section 270A(2)Section 271(1)(c)

M/S. Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxn Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1215/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.Ashik Shah, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 133ASection 139Section 148Section 270A(2)Section 271(1)(c)

Blueray Trading Pvt. Limited, Thane vs. The Dy. CIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee before us stands allowed

ITA 496/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalblueray Trading Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. 306, Snehadisha, Parawadi, Income-Tax, Highway Road, Thane-400601 Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad [Pan : Aafcm 8859 D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Abhijit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- Delay Condoned. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.08.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short), Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ In Short), Relating To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68Section 69C

case for initiating proceedings under Section 263 of the Act since assessment order in the instant facts merged with the order of Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly, the PCIT has erred in facts and in law in initiating proceedings under Section 263 of the Act.” 9. Further, we also find

Tata Communications Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the assessee

ITA 3515/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri J. D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 112Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50

assessment year 1995-96 and thereafter, the flat was treated as an investment and was so shown in the balance sheet. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) concurred with the Assessing Officer. However, on second appeal, the Tribunal, solely relying on the entry in the balance sheet of the assessee wherein

Income Tax Officer, W-2(1), Gvmc (Part), Visakhapatnam vs. Sathish Kumar Attada, Gvmc (Part), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 422/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.422/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2018-19) Vs. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) Sathish Kumar Attada Infinity Tower, 2Nd Floor Flat No. 506, Tsr Nri County 2 Range-2, Sankaramatam Road Srinivasanagar, Yendada-530020 Santhipuram, Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Akapa1392B] करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri I. Kama Sastry, Ca : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 19.08.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69

Assessing Officer failing to discharge his functions properly, obligation to conduct Page. No 3 I.T.A.No.422/VIZ/2024 Sathish Kumar Attada proper inquiry shifts to Commissioner (Appeals) and CIT(A) cannot simply delete addition made by the Assessing Officer on ground of lack of inquiry by the Assessing Officer

Assistant Commissioner of Income Ta, Jaipur vs. Shri Nath Corporation, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 267/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

said provision, penalty cannot be imposed. Sub-section (1) of section 271 stipulates certain contingencies on the happening whereof the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) may direct payment of penalty by the assessee. We are concerned herewith the fundamentality provided in clause (c) of section ... Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals). When the survey is conducted by a survey team, the question of satisfaction of Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner does not arise. We have to keep in mind that it is the Assessing Officer who initiated the penalty proceedings and directed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 197/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (through V.C.) a

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

said provision, penalty cannot be imposed. Sub-section (1) of section 271 stipulates certain contingencies on the happening whereof the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) may direct payment of penalty by the assessee. We are concerned herewith the fundamentality provided in clause (c) of section ... survey team, the ITA No. 267, 196 & 197/JPR/2024 11 Shri Nath Corporation & Ors., Jaipur. question of satisfaction of Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner does not arise. We have to keep in mind that it is the Assessing Officer who initiated the penalty proceedings and directed

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jaipur vs. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 196/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

Sama Sangeeta Reddy Rep. by Gpa Holder Sama Sunil Kumar Reddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 680/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, KA Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

following grounds in the instant appeal : 2 ITA.No.680/Hyd./2025 1. “The order u/s 250 dated 21-02-2025 passed by the Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals) 11. Hyderabad is not correct either in law or on facts and in both. 2. The Learned First Appellate Authority is not justified

Neeraj Nath, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the manner indicated above

ITA 1519/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 57

delay of 459 days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. The assessee has assailed two additions sustained by the learned Commissioner (Appeals): first, the disallowance of interest expenditure amounting to ₹7,68,942/-, and secondly, the denial of exemption on sale of land claimed to be agricultural ... sanctioned in the nomenclature of a “home loan,” had no nexus with the interest income declared, and thus he disallowed the claim. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), without delving deeper into the commercial substance of the transaction, merely echoed the Assessing Officer’s conclusion and upheld the disallowance. 6. Before

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Goldendunes Heights LLP, Jaipur

ITA 1352/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR a

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 68

assessee was not in a position to establish capacity and creditworthiness of depositor, Assessing Officer made an addition under section 68 - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) thread bare examined entire material in case of each of these persons and entities and eventually held that identities of depositors had been proved

Shri Sardar Patel Sarafi Sahkari Mandali Ltd, Bagasara vs. The ITO Ward 3(1)(4), Aayakar Bhavan

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

ITA 560/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No. 560/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Sardar Patel Sarafi Sahkari Income Tax Officer, Wd – Mandali Ltd. Vs. 3(1)(4), Sardar Chowk, Gokul Para, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Bagasara - 365440 Ring Road, Rajkot – 360001 Pan No.: Aajas9766K (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ms. Devina Patel, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250

mentioned above. That thereafter, the appellant was also not aware about the passing of order u/s 250 dated 27-09-2024 by the Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC as it was not received on the updated e-mail id communicated by the Appellant on the E-filing portal i.e. on "sspssmlbagasara@gmail.com". That