← 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)

Indira Vashdev Gandhi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 29(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 3417/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri. Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3417/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year :2012-13) Indira Vashdev Gandhi V/S. Income Tax Officer Ward 634, Raj Legacy, 2 Building बिधम 29(1)(5), Mumbai 1 Wing, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli Kautilya Bkc Bandra, West, Mumbai 400083 Mumbai 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Ajzpg7601H Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. Dr सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date Of Hearing 14.07.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, SR
Section 148Section 250Section 68

prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 28.07.2023 as passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is bad in law since it dismisses the appeal on the reason of non-prosecution and does not adjudicate on the grounds/additional grounds ... Bombay)" may be quashed. 2. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the "the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte in violation of the principle of natural justice. Thus, the order dated 28.07.2023 may be set aside