“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)

Shri Bhaskaracharya Pratishthan, Chh Sambhajinagar vs. Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC-TDS

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the

ITA 2368/PUN/2024[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2025AY 2024-2025

For Appellant: Shri Aditya NavandarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 200ASection 234E

Appellants re-iterate the submissions made during the course of personal hearing. The Appellants re-iterate the grounds of appeal taken before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal. The same shall be treated as part and parcel of the present submission. The same are not being repeated here

Shree Bhaskaracharya Pratishthan, Chh Sambhajinagar vs. Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC-TDS

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the

ITA 2367/PUN/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Aditya NavandarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 200ASection 234E

Shri Bhaskaracharya Pratishthan, Chh. Sambhajinagar vs. Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC-TDS

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the respective assessee’s in ITA Nos

ITA 2366/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.476 To 480/Pun/2024 Chate Tutorials Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit,Tds Circle, Chate House, Plot No.4, Nashik Near N-2 Cricket Stadium, Cidco, Aurangabad – 431 003 Maharashtra Tan : Nskco1565E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Aditya NavandarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 200ASection 234E

Shri Bhaskaracharya Pratishthan, Chh. Sambhajinagar vs. Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC-TDS

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the

ITA 2365/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Aditya NavandarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 200ASection 234E

Shree Bhaskaracharya Pratishthan, Chh Sambhajinagar vs. Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the respective assessee’s in ITA Nos

ITA 2364/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Aditya NavandarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 200ASection 234E

Shree Bhaskaracharya Pratishthan, Chh Sambhajinagar vs. Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC-TDS

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the respective assessee’s in ITA Nos

ITA 2362/PUN/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Aditya NavandarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 200ASection 234E

Shri Bhaskaracharya Pratishthan, Chh. Sambhajinagar vs. Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC-TDS

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the respective assessee’s in ITA Nos

ITA 2361/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Aditya NavandarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 200ASection 234E

Shree Bhaskaracharya Pratishthan, Chh Sambhajinagar vs. Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CPC TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the respective assessee’s in ITA Nos

ITA 2360/PUN/2024[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2025AY 2023-2024

For Appellant: Shri Aditya NavandarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 200ASection 234E

Shree Bhaskaracharya Pratishthan, Chh Sambhajinagar vs. Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the respective assessee’s in ITA Nos

ITA 2359/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Aditya NavandarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 200ASection 234E

Shree Bhaskaracharya Pratishthan, Chh Sambhajinagar vs. Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the

ITA 2357/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Aditya NavandarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 200ASection 234E

Shree Bhaskaracharya Pratishthan, Chh Sambhajinagar vs. Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the

ITA 2356/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Aditya NavandarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 200ASection 234E

DCIT, CC-1(4), Kolkata vs. Kkalpana Industries India Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 452/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.452/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kkalpana Industries India Ltd. 2B, Pretoria Street, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Aabck 2239 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 13.11.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1070338584(1), For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. Shri P.N.Barnwal, Ld.Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Ms. Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. A Perusal Of The Appeal Record, We Find That The Appeal Of The Revenue Has Been Filed Belatedly By 28 Days. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Thus, The Delay Of 28 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate and Ms. Puja Somani, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 45

final order is in its favour. In the instant case, the assessee was not an aggrieved party, as he had succeeded before the Commissioner (Appeals) in the ultimate analysis. Not having filed a cross objection, even when the appeal was preferred by the revenue, it does not mean that ... support the order in appeal on any of the grounds decided against it. The respondent-assessee had taken the ground of maintainability before Commissioner (Appeals) and, therefore, in the appeal filed by the revenue, it could rely upon rule 27 and advance his arguments, even though it had not filed

Jogmaya Construction Company, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 37(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed both on account of delay as well as on merits

ITA 1063/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 251

effect from 01.10.2024 as per the proviso to clause (a) of subsection (1) to section 251 of the Act, where the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is against an order of assessment made u/s 144 of the Act, he may set aside the assessment order and refer the case back

Suresh Ashwathsastry Madamuthanahally, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the delay is condoned, and the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2556/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Wagle, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

passed an ex parte order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 250(6) mandates that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. In the present case, the assessee was deprived

Emerging India Focus Funds, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 1(2)(2), Delhi

ITA 1963/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon vs. Aro Equipments Private Limited, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3415/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Dcit, Aro Equipments Private Limited Circle-1(1), 5Th Floor, Hsiidc Vs. Plot No.300, Aro Tower, Building, Udyog Vihar, Udyog Vihar, Phase-2, Gurgaon, Phase-5, Gurgaon, Haryana. Haryana. Pan No.Aacca8471G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

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 in the books ... declared the gross profit at 3.56 per cent of the total turnover. If the yardstick of 30 per cent, as adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals), is accepted the gross profit rate will be much higher. In essence, the Tribunal only estimated the possible profit out of purchases made through

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Billet Procon Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 1382/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

Section 68

framed reassessment by making various additions. In appeal, the assessee contested the reopening of the assessments and also the addition made by AO. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals on the additions made by the AO, however on the question of validity of reopening of the assessments, he held against ... recourse of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules without assessee having filed cross appeal or cross objection before the Tribunal against order of Commissioner (Appeals)." 9. As could be seen from the above, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held that the position of law that materials on a reading

Singh Carriers, Jhansi vs. Ward 2(3)(1), Jhansi

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

ITA 140/AGR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Singh Carriers, Ward-2(3)(1), 2716, Swamipuram Vs. Jhansi. Colony, Gwalior Road, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh-284003. Pan-Aacfs9607B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 251(1)Section 37(1)Section 69

completed it under section 144 on ground that referral fees was not an allowable expenditure under section 37(1) - On appeal, though Commissioner (Appeals) was empowered under proviso to section 251(1) to set aside best judgment assessment, he failed to adjudicate assessee’s specific ground challenging validity of reassessment ... jurisdictional ground under first proviso to section 147 - Whether It is not obligatory on part of Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside all best judgment assessment orders passed under section 144 to file of Assessing Officer - Held, yes - Whether Commissioner (Appeals) instead of summarily setting aside matter to file of Assessing

Shree Cement Limited, Bangur Nagar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

ITA 1517/JPR/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dilip B. Desai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 254Section 36(1)(va)Section 80Section 801A

Tribunal should not be restricted u/s 254 of the Act to decide only the grounds which arise from the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The purpose of the assessment proceedings before the taxing authorities is to assess correctly the tax liability of an assessee in accordance with law and both

Dnh Spinners Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal being infructuous is dismissed

ITA 2624/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, (Sr. AR)

Section 124(3)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 170(2)Section 80I

jurisdiction should have been determined by the Director General or the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner and not by the Tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals) in terms of Section 124(3)(b). 6.8 Further as per the provisions of Sec. 124(3) of the Act, there