← All Phrases

“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)

Narayan Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1077/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Avijit Ghoshal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengputa, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)

company, evidence whereof was with the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Assessing Officer could not have added the income, which was rightly deleted by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal". Decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT -Vs-Paramjit Kaur

Rajeshwar Govind Deshpande, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of

ITA 4026/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) Rajeshwar Govind Deshpande Ito, Ward-3(2), Thane Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Near 1-504, Vijay Park, Ghodbundar Road, Vs Kesarvadavli Thane, Midc Road, 16Z, Wagle Maharashtra – 400615. Industrial, Thane, [Pan No. Aadpd6123G] Maharashtra-400604. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 144Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69

well as Rajeshwar Govind Deshpande copy of purchase deed, all bank statements explaining the sources of investments. But to our utter surprise, the honorable commissioner appeals has not considered our submission nor given us any opportunity to explain our case and passed the order against us confirming additions made ... Thane. The honorable commissioner has not written even a single word on our submissions and rejected our prayer. Hence, aggrieved by the order of commissioner appeals, we prefer this appeal before this honorable court. 4. The honorable Commissioner of Appeals has not considered any of the required documents showing investments

Kunvarji Bhachu Shah, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -31(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1191/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Srivastava, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

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." Page

K 0716 Rakkiapalayam Pacc, Tirupur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4) Tirupur, Tirupur

ITA 1820/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon'Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1820/Chny/2025

Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'डी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु कुमार गिरि

Shantha Alias Shanthamma, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

ITA 465/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Deepak, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan M, CIT (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 153C

additions made based on such evidence are bad in law and should be deleted. 5. Failure to Provide Satisfaction Note and Seized Materials The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in not accepting the contention of the Appellant about providing the satisfaction note and the copy of the seized materials, which ... crucial for a fair assessment. 6. Addition of Capital Gain on Estimation Basis The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in not accepting the contention of the Appellant by adding the capital gain on an estimation basis in the year under consideration for the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) entered in the years

Prudent Insurance Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3186/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

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

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80G

view these discussions and considering the judicial precedence in this regard, it is viewed that there is no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in allowing the deduction under section 80G to the assessee towards donations made to Reliance Foundation and Shyam Kothari Foundation. Accordingly the grounds raised

Mohammed Izhar Mohammed Ismail Chaudhary, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3149/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhrimohammed Izhar Mohammed Ismail Chaudhary, Room No.169, Chawl No.01, Duttwadi Chawl, Near Petrol Pump, Mumbra, ............... Appellant Thane - 400612 Pan : Afypt8103L V/S Income Tax Officer – 1(2), Ashar It Park, ……………… Respondent 6Th Floor, Road No.16Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West) Thane - 400604 Assessee By : Mr. Shashank Mehta Revenue By : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 50CSection 54F

Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), reported in [2016] 69 4 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 to set aside the impugned

Akry Organics Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Central Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, we allow the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80-IA(4) to the extent of ₹17,40,75,413/-, as made in the revised return of income

ITA 3014/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

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

Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 80

Form 10CCB 30-03-2022 Date of filling Revised RoI 31-03-2022 Claim was made U/s.80IA 5. From the aforesaid dates, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) drew certain inferences. He observed that the assessee had not made any claim for deduction under section 80-IA in its original return ... obligated its furnishing at least one month prior to the due date of filing of the return of income. 5.1. In this context, the Commissioner (Appeals) adverted to the provisions of section 80AC, which stipulate that no deduction under section 80-IA shall be admissible unless the assessee furnishes

Girdhari Lal Kedar Nath Singhal, Agra vs. The Income Tax Officer 1(1)(1), Agra

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

ITA 182/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahmangirdhari Lal Kedar Nath Singhal, Vs. Ito 1 (1)(1), Ff – 1, Bhagwati Complex, Agra. M.G. Road, Opp. Shah Cinema, Agra – 282 002 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aacfg5458N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Naveen Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Order : 03.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Naveen Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 80G

carrying out work contracted out to assessee - On account of non-production of parties, Assessing Officer disallowed expenditure and made addition of such amount - Commissioner (Appeals) after an elaborate examination confirmed on Iv part of total disallowance - Tribunal deleted entire addition made by Assessing Officer holding that on ground

Ms Aditya Plastic, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 186/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.185 & 186/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2013-14) बनाम/ M/S Aditya Plastic The Income Tax Officer Umiya Industrial Building Ward-3(1)(1) Vs. Near New Nehru Nagar Rajkot -360 001 Main Road, Dhebar Road Rajkot – 360 004 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajfa 4558 In (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench-: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cit(A)-[(In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 01/02/2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Dated 29/09/2021Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”) Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.DR
Section 119Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are as follows: 1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of Income Tax Officer ward-3(1)(1), Rajkot in issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Act and thereby framing ... assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. ITA No.185&186/Rjt/2024 (AY 2013-14) Aditya Plastic v. ITO 2. `The learned Commissioner (Appeals), erred in upholding action of the Income- tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(1) Rajkot in not granting the reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Appellant, thereby

Ms Aditya Plastic, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(1), Rajkot-

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.185 & 186/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2013-14) बनाम/ M/S Aditya Plastic The Income Tax Officer Umiya Industrial Building Ward-3(1)(1) Vs. Near New Nehru Nagar Rajkot -360 001 Main Road, Dhebar Road Rajkot – 360 004 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajfa 4558 In (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench-: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cit(A)-[(In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 01/02/2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Dated 29/09/2021Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”) Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.DR
Section 119Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are as follows: 1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of Income Tax Officer ward-3(1)(1), Rajkot in issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Act and thereby framing ... assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. ITA No.185&186/Rjt/2024 (AY 2013-14) Aditya Plastic v. ITO 2. `The learned Commissioner (Appeals), erred in upholding action of the Income- tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(1) Rajkot in not granting the reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Appellant, thereby

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad., Vejalpur vs. Gopalbhai Umarbhai Bharavad, Viramgam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 19/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: The Final Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumbhare, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Hem Chhajed, AR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 251(1)(a)

para 5.6 to 5.6.1 of his order as under: “5.6 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Mgn Agro Properties Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue has been rendered as dismissed, in terms

ITA 3759/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kapadia a/w. Shri AjayFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, (CIT DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

found out is the result of rate difference and this fact has not been refuted either by the assessing officer or by the Commissioner (Appeals) who have gone only on the sole ground of surrender made during the search proceedings. Therefore, keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances

Zenith Public School, Namakkal vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Salem

ITA 31/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Section 11Section 12A

Appeals) is not justified in confirming addition of Rs.10,28,208/- made to assessee trust's income in the circumstances of the case. 2) Commissioner (Appeals) ought not to have assumed that cost of construction of building might have been claimed as an application. 3) Managing Trustee P.S Shanmugam having

ACIT-27(1), Mumbai vs. Gammon Neelkanth Realty Corporation, Mumbai

ITA 1897/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Adv. &
Section 250

profit is without any reasonable basis. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on ad-hoc basis. Accordingly, upholding the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals

ACIT 27(1), Mumbai vs. Gammon Neelkanth Realty Corporation, Mumbai

ITA 1896/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Adv. &
Section 250

profit is without any reasonable basis. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on ad-hoc basis. Accordingly, upholding the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Imran, Bulandshahr

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 251(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

which reads as under: “Section 251(1)(a) amended with effect from 01.10.2024 reads 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

The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot vs. Shri Bhagvanji Prabhubhai Amrutiya, Morbi

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee, ( in CO No

ITA 142/RJT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.139/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Expert Particle Board बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Survey No.111, 8-A National Vs. Highway B/H. Bharatinagar Iti, Ravapar Nadi Morbi 363 642. Pan : Aahfe 0299 G आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.142/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.05/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bhagvaji Prabhubhai बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Amrutiya, Meera Park-2 Vs. House No.1, Vavdi Road Morbi. Pan : Aiwpa 0121 A (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2025 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20 & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 37Section 69ASection 69B

Board. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in considering the facts of the case and in ignoring that the substantive addition were made on account of investment in land ... contrary to the facts of the case. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,48,89,125/-made on account of unexplained investment u/s 69B of the I.T. Act. 5.On the facts

The ACIT, Cen. Cir.-2, Rajkot vs. Expert Particle Board, Morbi

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee, ( in CO No

ITA 139/RJT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.139/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Expert Particle Board बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Survey No.111, 8-A National Vs. Highway B/H. Bharatinagar Iti, Ravapar Nadi Morbi 363 642. Pan : Aahfe 0299 G आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.142/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.05/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bhagvaji Prabhubhai बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Amrutiya, Meera Park-2 Vs. House No.1, Vavdi Road Morbi. Pan : Aiwpa 0121 A (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2025 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20 & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 37Section 69ASection 69B

Board. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in considering the facts of the case and in ignoring that the substantive addition were made on account of investment in land ... contrary to the facts of the case. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,48,89,125/-made on account of unexplained investment u/s 69B of the I.T. Act. 5.On the facts

Kaniyalal Savljibhai Rajpurohit, Kosamba vs. ITO, Ward 3(3)(4), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1083/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1083/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Kaniyalal Savljibhai Rajpurohit Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, बनाम/ Gangasagar Apartment Bardoli, Income Tax Office, 2Nd Vs. Tarsadi, Mangrol, Surat-394 Floor, Bsnl Building, Opp. Jalaram 120 Temple, Station Road, Bardoli-394 601 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aylpr 4526 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Mayur Thakkar, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 15/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2025

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250

Ground of appeal raised by the assessee for the appeals are as under: 1. The Assessing Officer and Commissioner Appeal have erred in law and in facts, in considering the higher percentage of profit. 2. The Commissioner Appeal Mumbai has passed the order without territorial jurisdiction in our case ... appeals before the first appellate authority are handled in a faceless, electronic manner through the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which allocates appeals to Commissioners (Appeals) across India by an automated system. Once such e-allocation system has been put in place, the concept of fixed territorial jurisdiction ceases