“ Commissioner (Appeals) ”

CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)

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.

297 CTR 614 · 2017 · High Court

659

Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT

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.

199 ITR 351 · 1993 · High Court

441

CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate

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.

53 ITR 225 · 1964 · Supreme Court

359

CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry

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.

44 ITR 891 · 1962 · Supreme Court

278

Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar

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.

1 SCC 591 · 1985 · Reported

225

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT

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.

30 SOT 374 · 2009 · ITAT

201

CIT v. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P.) Ltd.

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.

56 Taxmann.com 286 · 2015 · High Court

196

ITA 1983/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

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)

Late Soli Engineer, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 42(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment 3 years stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(1)Section 205Section 234BSection 234C

Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to verify TDS claim made by the Appellant. 4) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in completely ignoring decisions, including of the Jurisdictional High Court which had already interpreted the law point involved. 5) The Learned Commissioner of Income

Rahul Nemgonda Patil, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ichalkaranji

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

ITA 2522/PUN/2024[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2025

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68

case of other deposits into bank accounts. Where the Assessing Officer has, mistakenly, treated unexplained deposits in bank as income u/s 68, the Commissioner (Appeals) can direct the Assessing Officer to charge the relevant sums u/s 69/69A instead of s 08 on the basis of general principles. 5.7 The findings

ACIT Circle, 3(4), Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2119/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2037/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2038/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Union Bank Of India, Finance & Accounts, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 V/S. बनाम Dcit, Circle- (Ltu) 2, Mumbai Room No. 421, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0564G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2119/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2118/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Acit, Circle-3(4), Mumbai Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 V/S. Union Bank Of India, Finance & Accounts, Union बनाम Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0564G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Page 2

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Vikas K. Suryawanshi

ITA 2118/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

from sale of these securities constituted capital gains within article 14(4) of the DTAA and were, therefore, exempt from tax in India. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted both additions and the Tribunal upheld his order. On appeal: Held, dismissing the appeal, (i) that the securities in this case expressly provided ... account under the head 'loans and advances' or debtors was a condition precedent for claiming deduction under section 36(1)(vii). On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that it was not necessary for the purpose of writing off of bad debts to pass corresponding entries in the individual account

ACIT, Circle -3(4), Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2037/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2038/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Union Bank Of India, Finance & Accounts, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 V/S. बनाम Dcit, Circle- (Ltu) 2, Mumbai Room No. 421, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0564G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2119/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2118/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Acit, Circle-3(4), Mumbai Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 V/S. बनाम Union Bank Of India, Finance & Accounts, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0564G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Page 2

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Vikas K. Suryawanshi

ITA 2038/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

M/S Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-(Ltu) 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Vikas K. Suryawanshi

ITA 2037/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

M/S Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-(Ltu)-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2037/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2038/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Union Bank Of India, Finance & Accounts, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0564G Appellant/अपीलार्थी V/S. बनाम Dcit, Circle- (Ltu) 2, Mumbai Room No. 421, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2119/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2118/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Acit, Circle-3(4), Mumbai Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 V/S. Union Bank Of India, बनाम | Finance & Accounts, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0564G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Page 2

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Vikas K. Suryawanshi

ITA 171/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Parisons Estates and Industries Private Limited, Calicut vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Kozhikode

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

which was exigible to Income Tax. 5. When the method followed by the appellant was accepted by the department in the earlier years ; the Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in upholding the assessment order when the underlying facts have not changed. Even though Res-Judicata principle is not applicable

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. vs. Neptune Overseas Ltd., Ashram Road

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 253/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Hardik Vora, A.R

Section 148Section 40Section 68

advances. Since necessary details like names, past income recognition, and proof of business linkage were missing, the claim was disallowed. 5. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the AO had passed the assessment order in a mechanical and casual manner, without properly considering the facts and evidence on record ... respond to repeated requests for a remand report on these new evidences. On the issue of reopening the assessment under Section 148, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that since no addition was made on the basis of the original reason for reopening (i.e., purchase of mutual funds

DCIT, CC-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Shani Prahladbhai Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby

ITA 1329/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 68

wherein he made addition of Rs.1.45 crore under section 68 on ground that loan taken from one ‘IA' was not explained satisfactorily - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) was satisfied with respect to genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of MA' and, therefore, deleted addition - It was found that total loan of Rs.1.60

Chaitali Hotels, Kolhapur vs. CIT(A)-11, Pune

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

ITA 1846/PUN/2024[AY-2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Chaitali Hotels Cit(A)-11, Pune 257, Kadamwadi Road, Vs. Kolhapur – 416005 Pan: Aagfc8348F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 04-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-06-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271ASection 274Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

present case, the satisfaction for initiation of penalty u/s 270A, with regard to the amount of Rs.5,06,267/- was of the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act corresponding to this income can be done by the Commissioner (Appeals) only. Therefore, the penalty u/s 270A

Astavinayak Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Janephal vs. ITO Ward-1, Khamgaon

In the result, as delay in filing of appeal is not condoned, the appeal is not admitted and is rejected accordingly

ITA 158/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh ToshniwalFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha

Section 147Section 148Section 2(31)Section 249Section 249(2)

condone the delay in filing the appeal is reproduced as under- 3 Astavinayak Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit ITA no.158/Nag./2025 "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

C.I. Finlease Private Limited, Bhopal vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhopal

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 396/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

For Appellant: C.1. Finlease Private Limited, Bhopal (PAN: AABCC6164B)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

That I was representing the Income Tax proceedings for AY 2012-13 of M/s C.I.Finlease § Private Limited, Bhopal ( PAN: AABCC6164b) before the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal. OTay 3. That the income tax appeal for the assessment year was filed’me before the learned * & ‘fi Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal ... years. 2. That i represented the Income Tax proceedings for A.Y. 2010-11 of M/S. Cl Builders Private Limited, Bhopal before the ACIT & Commissioner Appeals, Bhopal. 3. That the tax Appeal of the assesses was filed by me before the CIT(A), Bhopal and the same has been decided

Arvindbhai Punabhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1998/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the grounds raised before him. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the Appeal of the assessee without considering the detailed submission made before him on 25-08-2022. 3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also erred on facts and in law in ignoring the legal position that when on ground on which reopening

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. Sankalp Organisers Pvt Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals in IT(SS)A No

ITA 482/AHD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

ITA 481/AHD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

entire sum of the said undisclosed sales as income of the assessee for the assessment year 1994-95. Such addition was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal, however, held that the entire sales could not have been added as income of the assessee, but only to the extent ... extent of Rs.10.85 lakhs was not found in the books of account. Such amount was included in the total income of the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) gave substantial relief to the assessee and reduced the income on the basis of gross profit I.T.(SS)A No. 47 to 52/Ahd/2023

The Asstt. Commissioner of Incometax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. Sankalp Venture LLP, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

ITA 436/AHD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Sankalp Venture LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Incometax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

ITA 435/AHD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Sankalp Organisers Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Incometax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)