“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, Trichy, Income Tax Office vs. Ramasamy Sivaprakasam, Karur

ITA 1267/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. M.K. Rangaswamy, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 37Section 37(1)

applicable to the he present case as well, is as under: - “5. We are broadly in agreement with the reasoning adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) with respect to the nature of disputed purchases of steel. It may be that the three suppliers from whom the assessee claimed to have purchased ... total sale is accepted by the Assessing Officer, he could not have questioned the very basis of the purchases. In essence, therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) believed the assessee's theory that the purchases were not bogus but were made from the parties other than those mentioned men in the books

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Office, Trichy vs. Ramasamy Sivaprakasam, Karur

ITA 1266/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. M.K. Rangaswamy, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 37Section 37(1)

DCIT, Cen Cir 2(2), Chennai vs. Jayapriya Company, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1252/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Yamuna, CIT

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250

ground that fresh loans were advanced during relevant year and, therefore, it could not be said that recovery of interest had become bad - Commissioner (Appeals) upheld disallowance on ground that though liability of subsidiary ceased but no taxes were paid due to heavy losses and assessee had created camouflaged transactions

DCIT, CC2(2), Chennai vs. Jayapriya Company, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1251/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Yamuna, CIT

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250

Income Tax Officer, Hisar vs. Surjinder Singh, Hisar

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2466/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

ITA No.2466/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI

Lalji Yadav, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer- 6(2), Lucknow

ITA 804/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Income Tax Officer-6(2)

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH

Shashi Infra Construction Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. ITO, Lucknow

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

ITA 353/LKW/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Shashi Infra V. The Constructions Pvt Ltd Addl/Joint/Deputy/Asstt/Income 328B, 5Th Lane Rajendra Tax Officer, Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226004. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi Tan/Pan:Aaucs5802M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 253(3)Section 694ASection 69A

Income Tax Rules, 1962 which is being reproduced as under: "Rule 46A.-- (1) The Appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] [or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)], any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during ... Appellant to adduce evidence relevant to any ground of appeal. (2) No evidence shall be admitted under sub-rule (1) unless the [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] [or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)] records in writing the reasons for its admission. (3) The [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals

Shri Martand Deosansthan Jejuri, Pune vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1(2), Pune

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

ITA 593/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sachin KumarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(9)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

avoiding genuine hardship in any case or class of ases, by general or special order, authorise any income-tax authority, not being a Joint Commissioner(Appeals) or a Commissioner (Appeals) to admit an application or claim for any exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief under this Act after

Suggest Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. ITO -5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 432/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 251Section 68

assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who, in view of the amendment in section 251 of the Act empowering the Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the assessment and refer the I.T.A. No.: 432/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Suggest Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. case back to the Assessing Officer

Millennium Contrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 424/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 68Section 69C

Provided that, in a case falling under clause (b) and on an application made by the appellant in this behalf, the [Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Page | 4 I.T.A. Nos.: 424/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 1. Millennium Contrade Private Limited Commissioner (Appeals) may, for any good and sufficient reason

Shanti Satyadev Mishra, Santacruz Vakola vs. Assessing Officer, Piramal Chamber Parel

In the result, ground No. 2 & 3 of appeal are allowed for

ITA 4574/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Shanti Satyadev Mishra Ito - 22(3)(1), Mumbai C-603 Building No. 3, Khandwala Sra Scy, Vs Dattamandir Road, Vakola B Santacruz East, Mumbai – 400055. [Pan: Arepm0794J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 148Section 254(1)

days delay in filing appeal before Tribunal. The delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. In fact, the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not served upon the assessee. The assessee came to know about passing of impugned order only when recovery notice was received in December ... appeal on merit. 3. On merit of the appeal, the learned AR of the assessee submits that assessing officer (AO) as well as learned Commissioner (Appeals) passed the ex-parte order without allowing fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The ld. AO made addition on account of difference

Radhakishan Beniwal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 695/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 139Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 251Section 68

verify the claim under section 251 of the Act to the CIT(A). Relevant extracts are as under: “Powers of the [Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals). 251. (1)In disposing of an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall have the following powers— (a) in an appeal against an order ... deals with the powers of the Commissioner of Appeals. Sub-Section (1) states that in disposing of an appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) shall have the powers as enumerated in clauses (a), (aa), (b), (c). In so far as the case on hand, clause (a) of section

Radhakishna Beniwal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 694/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 139Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 251Section 68

Bhartiya Jan Sewa Ashram, Jaunpur vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Lucknow

ITA 200/LKW/2020[20161-7]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143Section 144Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI, NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

Potu Janardhan Rao, Warangal vs. ITO., Ward-1, Warangal

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1072/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us: 2. Succinctly Stated, The Ao, Based On Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Of Rs. 1.08 Crores In His Current Account With Andhra Bank (Now Union Bank Of India) & Made Withdrawals Of Rs. 93.24 Lacs From The Said Bank Account, Initiated Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act.

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 251(1)(a)Section 69A

sake of clarity, section 251(1) is culled out 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 such appeal ... Proviso” to Section 251(1) of the Act, reads as under: “4. Considering the huge pendency of appeals and disputed tax demands at the Commissioner (Appeals) stage, it is proposed that the cases where assessment order was passed as best judgement case under section 144 of the Act, Commissioner (Appeals

Priti Prajyot Potphode, Palghar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3, Palghar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 4058/MUM/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri. Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 4058/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Priti Prajyot Potphode V/S. Income Tax Officer Umber Pada Wadare, बिधम Ward 3 Safale, Palghar 401102 Amba Wadi, Palghar, Maharashtra, Thane 401404 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Ajhpm9841M Appellant/अपीलधथी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्धाररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Tanmay Phadke-Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri. Virabhadra Mahajan, (Sr Dr) सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 10.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 26.08.2024 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, Which In Turn Arises From The Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act Passed By Assessing Officer, Nfac, Delhi, Dated 26.03.2021. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Extracted As Under: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The National Faceless Appeal Centre/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["The Learned Commissioner (Appeals)] Erred In Deciding The Appeal Ex-Parte In Violation Of The Principle Of Natural Justice. Thus, The Order Dated 26.08.2024 May Be Set Aside & The Matter May Be Restored Back To The File Of The Learned Commissioner (Appeals).

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Phadke-AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

under: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["the learned Commissioner (Appeals)] erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte in violation of the principle of natural justice. Thus, the order dated 26.08.2024 may be set aside ... matter may be restored back to the file of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). P a g e | 2 ITA No 4058/Mum/2025 Ay 2014-15 Priti Prajyot Potphde 2. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 26.08.2024 as passed

Ap Goyal Charitable Trust, East Delhi, Delhi India vs. ITO, Civic Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2038/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 2Section 249(4)

payable by him: Provided that, in a case falling under clause (b) and on an application made by the appellant in this behalf, the Commissioner (Appeals) may, for any good and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing, exempt him from the operation of the provisions of that clause

Deputy Comissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Blackburn Fuels Private Limited, Vizianagaram

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 293/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 68

erred in observing that in the event of Assessing Officer failing to discharge his functions property, obligation to conduct proper inquiry shifts to Commissioner (Appeals) and cannot simply delete addition made by Assessing Officer on ground of lack of inquiry. 8) The appellant craves leave to add or delete

Anil Kumar Batar, Sikar vs. PCIT-Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 418/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 263

into existence in favor of the assessee. Therefore this amount did not become the income. The High Court was of the view that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in finding that the assessee was following the hybrid system of accounting on the ground that the whole of the amount received from ... year of the receipt of the amount. In 'R.S. Suriya V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax' – 2010 (1) TMI 969 - ITAT CHENNAI the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the advance professional fee of ₹ 55 lakhs as income for the impugned assessment year 2006 – 07 relying on his own decision

Jai Matadi Enterprise, Murshidabad vs. ITO, Ward 42(1), Murshidabad

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

ITA 1356/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

this respect, it is relevant to examine the provisions of section 250(6) which are reproduced as under: “250(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 ... Matadi Enterprise. 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 Assessing Officer's order