“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)

Assistantcommissionerof Incometax, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva vs. M/S. Anubandh Financial Services Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2390/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 68

order passed by the appellate authority. In other words, the Tribunal was required to examine the correctness of the factual findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and then recorded its views as to why it is not in agreement with the findings of the appellate authority. On reading ... also arose under section 68 and the facts and circumstances of the case were more or less identical. In the said case also the Commissioner (Appeals) on examining the facts found that the assessee-company therein had no track record or asset base for demanding astronomical high premium per share

Pallishri Samabaya Krishi Unanyan Samity Limited, Coochbehar vs. I.T.O., Ward 2.1, Coochbehar

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

ITA 476/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 250Section 69A

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 ... 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

Kamlesh Kumar, Patna vs. ITO Ward- 6 (4), Patna

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

ITA 147/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraι.Τ.Α. No.: 147/Pat/2025

Section 144Section 250

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] Commissioner (Appeals) may, for any good and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing, exempt him from the operation of the provisions of that

Sant Harajindar Singh, Pilibhit vs. Income Tax Officerito-2(4), Pilibhit-1, Pilibhit

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

ITA 565/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshrasant Harajindar Singh V. Income Tax Officer-2(4), Trilok Singh Santpipariya Pilibhit-1 Karam Puranpur, Pilibhit, Uttar Income Tax Office, Near Pradesh-262122. Lic Office, Awas Vikas Colony, Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh-262001. Pan:Dlmps4218F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 04 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 07 08 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, CIT(DR)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249(2)Section 69A

within the time specified in that sub-section, he may present such appeal before the 1st day of July, 2000.] (3) The 12[****] 13[Commissioner (Appeals)] may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting ... Provided that, 16[in a case falling under clause (b) and] on an application made by the appellant in this behalf, the 17[* * *] 18[{Commissioner (Appeals)] may, for any good and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing, exempt him from the operation of the provisions of 19[{that clause

Bhuwaneshwar Shukla, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Bhilai, Durg

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of accordingly

ITA 142/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 141 & 142/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Bhuwaneshwar Shukla Lig 12/06, Mansarowar Colony, Shiv Mandir, Bhilai-3, Durg-490 021 Pan: Ccips5734D ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Durg ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

NTPC” (supra), reads as under: 7. The view that the Tribunal is confined only to issues arising out of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) takes too narrow a view of the powers of the Tribunal - vide, e.g., CIT v. Anand Prasad [1981] 128 ITR 30 Bhuwaneshwar Shukla

Bhuwaneshwar Shukla, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Bhilai, Durg

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of accordingly

ITA 141/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Brijesh Kumar, West Champaran vs. Dc/Ac Circle-1, Muzaffarpur

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

ITA 77/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Mukesh Jain HUF, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 620/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Reopening The Assessment & Without Independent Application Of Mind. Thus, The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Reopening The Assessment U/S 148 & The Consequent Reassessment Order So Passed Deserves To Be Held Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

through commodity trading via client code modification - Based on such information, Assessing Officer reopened assessments under section 147 and made additions under section 69A - Commissioner (Appeals) observed that all transactions had taken place on NSEL platform and income derived from such transactions had been offered to tax - He, thus, held ... that its own funds were utilized to conduct transactions on NSEL platform - Whether, thus, there was no valid reason to interfere with decision of Commissioner (Appeals) qua deletion of additions made on account of client code modification - Held, yes [Para 10] [In favour of assessee] Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench

Sdc Construction, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD 1(3), Jiapur

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

ITA 347/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Mathur, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR a

Section 144BSection 147Section 249(4)(a)Section 68

Provided that, 2 in a case falling under clause (b) and) on an application made by the appellant in this behalf, the 3 Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)] may, for any good 11 SDC Construction, Jaipur. and sufficient reason to be recorded

M/S Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 310/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

Chapter shall be passed— (a) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 or section 246A or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 253, after the expiry of the financial year ... imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from the end of the month in which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever

M/S Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated

ITA 309/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

Jajoo Rashmi Refractories Limited, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. DCIT, Circle 4-Jaipur, Jaipur, Rajasthan

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

ITA 209/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Prabha Rana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 131Section 145Section 147Section 69C

CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR CASEMINE an erroneous footing contrary to the directions issued in its previous order. 14. Referring to the observations made by the Commissioner (Appeals) to the effect that the Assessing Officer has not found any instance whether the cheque issued by the assessee has been encashed on behalf

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Income Tax Office vs. Supreme Polymers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the results the appeal of the

ITA 189/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 189/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 DCIT, Central Circle-03, Jaipur बनाम Vs. Supreme Polymers Pvt. Ltd. 137-138, Industrial Area, Jhotwara, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AACCS 5773 P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Shri Gaurav Nahata, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की ता

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Nahata, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

period under consideration and, thus, procedure prescribed under section 153C had not been followed Whether since in instant case both Assessing Officer and Commissioner (Appeals) were looking for proof beyond doubt which was not possible and they were basing their decision on an element of suspicion, Commissioner (Appeals

Drb Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 8(1), Kondapur, Hyderabad

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

ITA 885/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.885/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Drb Infrastructure (P) Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Circle 8 (1) Pan:Aadcd7676H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11/03/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order U/ S 250 Dated 11-03-2025 Passed By The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Nfac, New Delhi Is Not Correct Either In Law Or On Facts & In Both. 2. The Learned First Appellate Authority Is Not Justified In Confirming The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Merely On The Grounds That No Reply Was Filed, Ignoring The Fact That The Ld. Assessing Officer Made The Addition Without Giving An Opportunity For Personal Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR

Section 154Section 271ASection 690

issued in the penalty appeal proceedings for AY 2018-19, which were running in parallel pursuant to identically dated hearing notices. B) The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) passed the ex-parte order citing nonfiling and the appellant up on realizing the mistake, filed on 13-03-2025, an online rectification application

ITO 41(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Deepika Anil Agarwal, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands

ITA 1885/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

Assessing Officer rejected assessee's plea and made additions undersections 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 ... 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 proceedings before

Rajendra Kumar Mundra (HUF), Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1000/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawalrajendra Kumar Mundra Vs. Ito, Ward 24(3)(1) (Huf) Piramal Chamber C-28, Ameya Bldg, Behind Lalbaug, Mumbai – Ymca Dn Nagar Andheri (W) 400012. 400053. Pan/Gir No.Aadh6828J (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 263Section 68Section 69A

under section 10(38) - Assessing Officer did not believe transactions in question as genuine and treated entire sale proceeds as 'Income from Other Sources' - Commissioner (Appeals) opined that in absence of any positive evidence, merely on basis of suspicion, transactions could not be held to be not genuine - Commissioner (Appeals ... Rajendra Kumar Mundra (HUF)., Mumbai. not believe transactions in question as genuine and treated entire sale proceeds as 'Income from Other Sources' - Commissioner (Appeals) opined that in absence of any positive evidence, merely on basis of suspicion, transactions could not be held to be not genuine - Commissioner (Appeals) thus

Shri Gunjan Kumar Bihani, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 (4), Raipur

In the result, the captioned appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 122/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.122/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Gunjan Kumar Bihani Ashoka Ratan, Khamhardih, Shankar Nagar, Raipur-492 009 (C.G) Pan: Ajupb5787C

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 124(3)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Pareshpari Pravinpari Gosai, Morbi vs. ITO WD-1 Morvi, Morvi

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 258/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.258/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

file of the Assessing Officer, observing that as per the newly inserted proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act, the 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 to the assessing officer

ACIT, Cir-1(1), Rajkot vs. Shri Rajkot District Co Operative Bank Ltd, Rajkot

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 188/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.188/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Rajkot District Co-Operative Bank Tax, Circle-1 (1), Rajkot Limited Room No.502, Aayakar Bhawan, Jilla Bankbhavan, Kasturba Road, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot- Opp: Chaudhary High School, 360001 Rajkot 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaar0564K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.Dr : 09/06 /2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08 /2025

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

respect of two 100 per cent Export Oriented Undertakings, however, all necessary facts for claiming deduction under section 10B were already on record, Commissioner (Appeals) in exercise of his plenary/co-terminus powers, as well as Tribunal, ought to have entertained claim. (c) The Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka

Crystal Hatcheries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 257/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nishi Padma, Addl. CIT-DR

surmise; and by misinterpretation of provisions of the Act, without considering the facts of the case and submissions of the appellant. 5. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Learned AO failed to appreciate that the farm maintenance expenses were mostly in the nature of day-to-day expenses like labour ... surmise; and by misinterpretation of provisions of the Act, without considering the facts of the case and submissions of the appellant. 6. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Learned AO failed to appreciate that the farm maintenance expenses were mostly in the nature of day-to-day expenses like labour