“ 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 692/LKW/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

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)

Dinesh Chand Jain, Kanpur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Dinesh Chand Jain, Vs. Dy. Cit, 7/189, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur- Central Circle-1, Kanpur 280002, U.P. Pan: Adbpj2732Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Add Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 28.04.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1.1 Because The Id. "Cit(A)" Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Withdrawing The Refund Of Interest Amounting To Rs. 8,20,163/-, Paid To The Assessee U/S 244A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 On Excess Amount Of Self-Assessment Tax Paid U/S 140A Of The Act. 1.2 Because The View Taken By Id. "Cit(A)" While Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer Is Based On Misinterpretation Of The Provisions Of Clause (B) Of Sub-Section (1) Of Section 244A Of The Act, As Applicable At The Relevant Point Of Time. 2. Because, In Any Case & Without Prejudice To The Grounds Hereinfore, While Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Withdrawing The Interest Paid To The Assessee U/S 244A Of The Act, The Ld. "Cit(A)" Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Of Payment Of Interest On Excess Amount Paid U/S 140A Was Debatable In Nature & It Could Not Have Been Decided By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 154 Of The Act As The Same Did Not Constitute A Mistake Apparent From The Record.

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Add CIT DR

Section 140ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 240Section 244Section 244ASection 244A(1)(a)Section 244A(1)(b)

notice by the assessee, and where the authority concerned is the [* * *] [ Certain words omitted by Act 21 of 1998, Section 65 (w.e.f. 1.10.1998).] [Commissioner (Appeals)] [ Inserted by Act 29 of 1977, Section 29 (w.e.f. 10.7.1978).], by the [Assessing Officer] [ Substituted by Act 4 of 1988, Section 2, for " Income

Karadi Path Education Company Private Limited, Chennai vs. Commissioner, Chennai

ITA 1848/CHNY/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1848/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Karadi Path Education Company Private Limited, 3A No.11, Dev Regency, I Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. [Pan: Aaeck-2995-D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dcit, Vs. Corporate Circle -4(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Pradhan Priya Dass, C.A. (By Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2026 आदेश /O R Der Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19, Dated 29.04.2025 In Respect Of The Order Of The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi (In Short 'Ao') Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ( In Short ‘The Act') Dated 28.04.2021. :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. Pradhan Priya Dass, C.A. (by Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

assessing officer in so far as it relates to the addition made in the order passed u/s.143(3) as upheld by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) is concerned is against the provisions of law and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case 2. That on facts and circumstances ... case, the Learned assessing officer / Learned Commissioner (Appeals) have erred in law and facts in adding Rs.1,99,36,410/- of the amount of share premium on account of conversion of unsecured loan to equity shares u/s.56(2)(viib) of the income-tax Act. 3. That on facts and circumstances

Bang Equity Broking Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7504/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anant N. Pai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 55

assessee has taken following grounds: Ground no. 1: On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining the action of the learned Assessing Officer in treating the long term capital gains of Rs. 1,16,18,632/- on sale of the Appellant ... deserves to be set right in appeal 2. Ground no. 2: On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the leamed Commissioner (Appeals) also erred in sustaining the action of the learned Assessing Officer in not allowing the cost of acquisition of the shares

Vicky Navani, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Jabalpur, Ward ))

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

ITA 124/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 253(3)Section 271Section 271BSection 273BSection 275Section 44A

case where the he relevant assessment or other order is the [(a) subject-matter of an appeal to the 71[] 71 [Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or to the] Commissioner (Appeals) under section 24672 [or section 246A) or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 253, after the expiry ... penalty has been initiated, are completed73, or six months from the end of the month in which the order of the 74[***] 74a [Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal is received by the 75[Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner

Adim Jati Seva Sahakari S Anstha Belkund, Belkund, Betul vs. ITO, Betul

ITA 95/IND/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshisa No. 2/Ind/2026 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 95/Ind/2026) &

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)Section 69A

assessee at first submitted that the section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides “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

Jatinkumar Patel, Chhatral Kalol vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 1, Mehsana

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

ITA 1907/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT- D.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT- D.R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263

Asst.Year –2014-15 - 5– abeyance, and sought adjournments stating that he had changed his tax consultant. 7. While adjudicating the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) first noted that the appeal itself had been filed with a marginal delay of about five days but condoned the same in the interest of justice ... enquiry, and that despite fresh opportunities in the set-aside proceedings the assessee did not furnish any explanation or evidence regarding the deposits. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the contention that the proceedings under section 144 read with section 263 should be kept in abeyance merely because the original reassessment

Chetan Mafatlal Chopra, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 7203/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

ITA 7202/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI PRABHASH

Chetan Mafatlal Chopra, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT D.R.)

ITA 7198/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

opportunity goes to root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment and, therefore, renders the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal vulnerable. The assessee was bound to be provided with the material used against him apart from being permitting him to cross ... 4744/Mum/2025 Pravin Khetaramm Purohit to by the Assessing Officer. When the assessee took up the aforesaid issue before the first appellate authority, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in letter dated 18th July 2016, had clearly directed the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee all adverse materials / documentary evidences available with

Ishwarlal Jawahara Ram Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT D.R.)

ITA 7197/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Ishwarlal Jawahara Ram Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT D.R.)

ITA 7196/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Ishwarlal Javahara Ram Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT D.R.)

ITA 980/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Talshibhai Kanjibhai Narola, Damnagar vs. The ITO WD 3(1)(4), RKT, Amreli-Rajkot

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Ms. Devina Patel, Ld. A.R

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69A

short “the Act”), vide order dated 22.03.2023. Talsibhai K. Narola 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi erred in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant ex-parte, by failing to appreciate that the Appellant ... interested in pursuing the appeal filed before the CIT(A). 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), erred in upholding framing of assessment u/s 147 of the Act by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, based on material found during search from third parties by failing

Shree Keshav Co Op Credit Society Ltd, Junagadh vs. The DCIT/ACIT, Cir 1(1), Rajkot

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed

ITA 794/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 793/Rjt/2025, for assessment year 2018-19, are as follows: “1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi failed to appreciate that the order passed by the ITO, E-assessment Centre, Delhi ... prior to expiry of time given to file a reply in response to show cause notice. 2. On merits, the learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi erred in upholding the action of Assessing Officer in treating interest income of Rs. 2,37,53,299/-, earned from deposits

Shree Keshav Co Op Credit Society Ltd, Junagadh vs. The DCIT/ACIT, Cir - 1(1), Rajkot

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed

ITA 793/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Satyaprem Rajabhau Dhole, Beed vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 368/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rathi (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 144B(1)(ix)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 2

provide powers of set-aside to CIT (Appeals). The relevant provisions after amendment read as under 251. (1) in disposing of an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall have the following powers- (a) in an appeal against an order of assessment, he may confirm, reduce, Enhance or annul the assessment, Provided

Pushpa Vikas Jain, Mumbai Maharashtra vs. Central Circle 4(2) ACIT Mumbai, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Maharashtra

ITA 7098/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT DR)

ITA 7097/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Pushpa Vikas Jain, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Central Circle 4(2) ACIT Mumbai, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Maharashtra

ITA 7096/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Pinkydevi Mahendrakumar Jain, Mumbai Maharashtra vs. Central Circle 4(2) ACIT Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Maharashtra

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT DR)

ITA 7095/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Pinkydevi Mahendrakumar Jain, Mumbai Maharashtra vs. Central Circle 4(2) ACIT Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Maharashtra

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT DR)