← 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)

Mr. Amarthya Siddhartha L/R of Late Sri. V G . Siddhartha, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

ITA 1452/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

Based on the discussion above, it is clear that limiting the powers of the Tribunal only to the issues that were raised before the Commissioner (Appeals) would be too restrictive. The Tribunal has wider powers under the law and can allow new issues to be raised during the appeal, even

Mr. Amarthya Siddhartha L/R of Late Sri. V G . Siddhartha, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1451/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

Based on the discussion above, it is clear that limiting the powers of the Tribunal only to the issues that were raised before the Commissioner (Appeals) would be too restrictive. The Tribunal has wider powers under the law and can allow new issues to be raised during the appeal, even

Mr. Amarthya Siddhartha L/R of Late Sri. V G . Siddhartha, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

ITA 1450/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

Based on the discussion above, it is clear that limiting the powers of the Tribunal only to the issues that were raised before the Commissioner (Appeals) would be too restrictive. The Tribunal has wider powers under the law and can allow new issues to be raised during the appeal, even

Mr. Amarthya Siddhartha L/R of Late Sri. V G . Siddhartha, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

Appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1449/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

Based on the discussion above, it is clear that limiting the powers of the Tribunal only to the issues that were raised before the Commissioner (Appeals) would be too restrictive. The Tribunal has wider powers under the law and can allow new issues to be raised during the appeal, even

Mr. Amarthya Siddhartha L/R of Late Sri. V G . Siddhartha, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1448/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

Based on the discussion above, it is clear that limiting the powers of the Tribunal only to the issues that were raised before the Commissioner (Appeals) would be too restrictive. The Tribunal has wider powers under the law and can allow new issues to be raised during the appeal, even

Mrs. Malavika Hegde L/R of Late Sri. V G Siddhartha, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1447/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

Based on the discussion above, it is clear that limiting the powers of the Tribunal only to the issues that were raised before the Commissioner (Appeals) would be too restrictive. The Tribunal has wider powers under the law and can allow new issues to be raised during the appeal, even

Mrs. Malavika Hegde L/R of Late Sri. V G Siddhartha, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1446/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

Based on the discussion above, it is clear that limiting the powers of the Tribunal only to the issues that were raised before the Commissioner (Appeals) would be too restrictive. The Tribunal has wider powers under the law and can allow new issues to be raised during the appeal, even

Mrs. Malavika Hegde L/R of Late Sri. V G Siddhartha, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1445/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

Based on the discussion above, it is clear that limiting the powers of the Tribunal only to the issues that were raised before the Commissioner (Appeals) would be too restrictive. The Tribunal has wider powers under the law and can allow new issues to be raised during the appeal, even

Mrs. Malavika Hegde L/R of Late Sri. V G Siddhartha, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1444/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

Based on the discussion above, it is clear that limiting the powers of the Tribunal only to the issues that were raised before the Commissioner (Appeals) would be too restrictive. The Tribunal has wider powers under the law and can allow new issues to be raised during the appeal, even

Mrs. Malavika Hegde L/R of Late Sri. V G Siddhartha, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

ITA 1443/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

Based on the discussion above, it is clear that limiting the powers of the Tribunal only to the issues that were raised before the Commissioner (Appeals) would be too restrictive. The Tribunal has wider powers under the law and can allow new issues to be raised during the appeal, even

Mrs. Malavika Hegde L/R of Late Sri. V G Siddhartha, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

ITA 1442/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

Based on the discussion above, it is clear that limiting the powers of the Tribunal only to the issues that were raised before the Commissioner (Appeals) would be too restrictive. The Tribunal has wider powers under the law and can allow new issues to be raised during the appeal, even

Sarnath Co-Op Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2550/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan1. Ita No. 2548/Mum/2025 (A.Y: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 2549/Mum/2025 (A.Y: 2015-16) 3. Ita No. 2550/Mum/2025 (A.Y: 2020-21) Sarnath Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. 59-B, Sarnath Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Breach Candy, Mumbai-400 026 Pan: Aaaas3230K Ito Ward 15(1)(4), Vs. Mumbai. (Appellant) Assessee Represented By Department Represented By Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : : : : (Respondent) Shri Pawan Choudhary, Ld. Ar Shri Pravin Salunkhe (Sr. Dr.) 02.07.2025 16.07.2025 Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan (J.M.): 1. These Appeals Are Filed By The Appellant/Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 27.02.2025 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl/Jcit (A)-4, Hyderabad [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)"], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act"] For The A.Y. 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2020-21 Respectively, Wherein The Appeals Of The Assessee Are Dismissed Being Barred By Limitation & The Ld. Cit(A) Has Refused To Condone The Delay Stating That The Assessee Has Failed To Show Sufficient Cause For Condonation Of Delay. 2. Since The Facts Of All The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Exactly Same, Parties Are Same, Also The Order Of The Same Date & The Matter Involved Is Also Similar Wherein The Assessee Has Challenged The Disallowance Of Interest Amount Earned From Deposit Of Interest With The Cooperative Banks & Was Claimed As Deduction U/S 80P(2)(D) Of The Act For The Different

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

appeal relates to any assessment or penalty, the date of service of thnotice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty: ... (3) The Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient

Sarnath Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2549/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

appeal relates to any assessment or penalty, the date of service of thnotice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty: ... (3) The Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient

Sarnath Co-Op Housing Society Ltd, Bhulabhai Desai vs. CIT(Appeal), Piramal Chamber

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2548/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan1. Ita No. 2548/Mum/2025 (A.Y: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 2549/Mum/2025 (A.Y: 2015-16) 3. Ita No. 2550/Mum/2025 (A.Y: 2020-21) Sarnath Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. 59-B, Sarnath Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Breach Candy, Mumbai-400 026 Pan: Aaaas3230K Ito Ward 15(1)(4), Vs. Mumbai. (Appellant) Assessee Represented By Department Represented By Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement (Respondent) Shri Pawan Choudhary, Ld. Ar Shri Pravin Salunkhe (Sr. Dr.) 02.07.2025 16.07.2025 Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan (J.M.): 1. These Appeals Are Filed By The Appellant/Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 27.02.2025 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl/Jcit (A)-4, Hyderabad [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)"], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act"] For The A.Y. 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2020-21 Respectively, Wherein The Appeals Of The Assessee Are Dismissed Being Barred By Limitation & The Ld. Cit(A) Has Refused To Condone The Delay Stating That The Assessee Has Failed To Show Sufficient Cause For Condonation Of Delay. 2. Since The Facts Of All The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Exactly Same, Parties Are Same, Also The Order Of The Same Date & The Matter Involved Is Also Similar Wherein The Assessee Has Challenged The Disallowance Of Interest Amount Earned From Deposit Of Interest With The Cooperative Banks & Was Claimed As Deduction U/S 80P(2)(D) Of The Act For The Different

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

appeal relates to any assessment or penalty, the date of service of thnotice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty: ... (3) The Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Hsbc Bank Plc, London

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1538/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 192

agents paid their proportionate share of the expenses incurred on these said systems and for maintaining those systems. Neither the Assessing Officer nor the Commissioner (Appeals) had stated that there was any profit element embedded in the payments received by the assessee from its agents in India. Once the character

Mogar Partapore Vibhag Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd, Na vs. Arivs.DCIT, Navsari Circle, Navsari

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 91/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)Section 8O

Chennai) (TM), the ITAT held that where assessee justified delay of 310 days in filing appeal before Tribunal by stating that Commissioner (Appeals)’s order was misplaced and forgotten and when same was found while sorting out unwanted papers, steps were taken for preparation of appeal, the delay in filing ... case, the assessee justified the delay only with reference to the affidavit of its director. In the said affidavit it was stated that the Commissioner (Appeal)’s order was misplaced and forgotten. It was found while sorting out the unwanted papers and thereafter steps were taken for the preparation

Navagam Vibhag Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward-3, Navsari

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 89/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)Section 8O

Chennai) (TM), the ITAT held that where assessee justified delay of 310 days in filing appeal before Tribunal by stating that Commissioner (Appeals)’s order was misplaced and forgotten and when same was found while sorting out unwanted papers, steps were taken for preparation of appeal, the delay in filing ... case, the assessee justified the delay only with reference to the affidavit of its director. In the said affidavit it was stated that the Commissioner (Appeal)’s order was misplaced and forgotten. It was found while sorting out the unwanted papers and thereafter steps were taken for the preparation

Navagam Vibhag Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Navsari

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 88/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)Section 8O

Chennai) (TM), the ITAT held that where assessee justified delay of 310 days in filing appeal before Tribunal by stating that Commissioner (Appeals)’s order was misplaced and forgotten and when same was found while sorting out unwanted papers, steps were taken for preparation of appeal, the delay in filing ... case, the assessee justified the delay only with reference to the affidavit of its director. In the said affidavit it was stated that the Commissioner (Appeal)’s order was misplaced and forgotten. It was found while sorting out the unwanted papers and thereafter steps were taken for the preparation

Navagam Vibhag Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward 3, Navsari

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 87/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)Section 8O

Chennai) (TM), the ITAT held that where assessee justified delay of 310 days in filing appeal before Tribunal by stating that Commissioner (Appeals)’s order was misplaced and forgotten and when same was found while sorting out unwanted papers, steps were taken for preparation of appeal, the delay in filing ... case, the assessee justified the delay only with reference to the affidavit of its director. In the said affidavit it was stated that the Commissioner (Appeal)’s order was misplaced and forgotten. It was found while sorting out the unwanted papers and thereafter steps were taken for the preparation

Navagam Vibhag Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd., Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward 3, Navsari

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 86/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)Section 8O

Chennai) (TM), the ITAT held that where assessee justified delay of 310 days in filing appeal before Tribunal by stating that Commissioner (Appeals)’s order was misplaced and forgotten and when same was found while sorting out unwanted papers, steps were taken for preparation of appeal, the delay in filing ... case, the assessee justified the delay only with reference to the affidavit of its director. In the said affidavit it was stated that the Commissioner (Appeal)’s order was misplaced and forgotten. It was found while sorting out the unwanted papers and thereafter steps were taken for the preparation