← 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)

Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited Chinna Golkonda, Shamshabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1262/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Mrs. S. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna – CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 80P

presenting it within that period. For the sake of clarity, sub-section (3) of Section 249 is culled out as under : (3) The Commissioner (Appeals) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting

Rajendra Bhalchandra Mokashi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5154/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ajeet Manwani, AdvocateFor Respondent: R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250

contained in Section 250 and 251 are discussed below. 4 Rajendra Bhalchandra Mokashi, AY 2013-14 3.3 The Act provides for the powers of Commissioner (Appeal) u/s. 251 which adequately deals with the powers in disposing of the appeal by the Ld. CIT(A). The section is reproduced as under ... Powers of the Commissioner (Appeals) 251. (1) In disposing off 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; or (aa) in an appeal against the order of assessment in respect

Mumbai Port Authority (Successor to Chairman Mumbai Port Trust Erstwhile Bombay Dock Labour Board), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exem) 1-(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 3108/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 5C(2)

inquiry as he thinks fit, or may direct the Assessing officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to the Commissioner (Appeals). Further, sub- section (6) provides that the CIT(A) shall pass an order in writing and shall set the points for determination, the decision

N.K. Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 448/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: NK Industries Ltd (Cross Appeals)
Section 250

character of income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer added these amounts as the income of the assessee for the purpose of assessment. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted these additions and the same was upheld by the Tribunal. On an application under Section 256(2) to the High Court, the High Court held

N.K. Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 447/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: NK Industries Ltd (Cross Appeals)
Section 250

character of income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer added these amounts as the income of the assessee for the purpose of assessment. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted these additions and the same was upheld by the Tribunal. On an application under Section 256(2) to the High Court, the High Court held

The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1)., Ahmedabad vs. N.K. Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 443/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: NK Industries Ltd (Cross Appeals)
Section 250

character of income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer added these amounts as the income of the assessee for the purpose of assessment. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted these additions and the same was upheld by the Tribunal. On an application under Section 256(2) to the High Court, the High Court held

The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1)., Ahmedabad vs. N.K. Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 442/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: NK Industries Ltd (Cross Appeals)
Section 250

character of income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer added these amounts as the income of the assessee for the purpose of assessment. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted these additions and the same was upheld by the Tribunal. On an application under Section 256(2) to the High Court, the High Court held

Arindam Mukherji, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 31(2), Kolkata

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1385/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Apr 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri I. Banerjee, ARFor Respondent: Shri H.Robindro Singh, Addl.CIT-Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

No.1384/Kol/2024 filed for A.Y.2011-2012 :- 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals)-NFAC, New Delhi, for being founded on superficial, arbitrary, fallacious view and judgment, is liable to be cancelled, reversed and declared unsustainable. (Tax Effect ... Penalty of Rs.344463.00) 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) - NFAC, New Delhi, was not justified in confirming the imposition of Penalty of Rs.344463.00, u/s 271(1)(c), in respect of addition of Rs.1672154.00 under the head "Capital Gain

Arindam Mukherji, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 31(2), Kolkata

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1384/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Apr 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri I. Banerjee, ARFor Respondent: Shri H.Robindro Singh, Addl.CIT-Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

No.1384/Kol/2024 filed for A.Y.2011-2012 :- 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals)-NFAC, New Delhi, for being founded on superficial, arbitrary, fallacious view and judgment, is liable to be cancelled, reversed and declared unsustainable. (Tax Effect ... Penalty of Rs.344463.00) 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) - NFAC, New Delhi, was not justified in confirming the imposition of Penalty of Rs.344463.00, u/s 271(1)(c), in respect of addition of Rs.1672154.00 under the head "Capital Gain

Sree Venkateshwara Souharda Credit Co-Operative Limited, Tumkur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Tumkur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2339/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Aprameya K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154(7)Section 249Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

submitted that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, especially as the delay was explained by an affidavit. The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of limitation without examining the cause of delay or the merits of the case

ACIT CC 6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Roshni Enterprises, Mumbai

ITA 4472/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

ACIT CC 6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Roshni Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4471/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 Assistant Commissioner Vs Roshni Enterprises Of Income Tax Central 519, The Great Eastern Circle 6(1), Mumbai Gallaria, Sector 04, Bkc, Mumbai Nerul 400706. Room No. 445, 4Th Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc, Mumbai 400051. Pan: Aasfr6639Q Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Nishit Gandhi, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Against The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-54, Mumbai Vide Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- 25/1065343505(1), Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1065343031(1) & Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1065342652(1), Dated 03.06.2024, Passed Against The Assessment Orders By Dcit, Central Circle 6(1), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 27.02.2024 For Assessment Year 2021-22, Dated M/S. Roshni Enterprises Ays 2021-22, 2019-20 & 2018-19 28.02.2024 For Assessment Year 2019-20 & Dated 31.03.2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 69

suspicion was the seemingly high level of expenditure. On this aspect, however, M/s. Roshni Enterprises AYs 2021-22, 2019-20 & 2018-19 the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the margin of profit, a little over 17 per cent compared favourably with the general trend in the business. In view of these

ACIT CC 6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Roshni Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4470/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 Assistant Commissioner Vs Roshni Enterprises Of Income Tax Central 519, The Great Eastern Circle 6(1), Mumbai Gallaria, Sector 04, Bkc, Mumbai Nerul 400706. Room No. 445, 4Th Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc, Mumbai 400051. Pan: Aasfr6639Q Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Nishit Gandhi, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Against The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-54, Mumbai Vide Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- 25/1065343505(1), Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1065343031(1) & Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1065342652(1), Dated 03.06.2024, Passed Against The Assessment Orders By Dcit, Central Circle 6(1), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 27.02.2024 For Assessment Year 2021-22, Dated M/S. Roshni Enterprises Ays 2021-22, 2019-20 & 2018-19 28.02.2024 For Assessment Year 2019-20 & Dated 31.03.2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 69

suspicion was the seemingly high level of expenditure. On this aspect, however, M/s. Roshni Enterprises AYs 2021-22, 2019-20 & 2018-19 the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the margin of profit, a little over 17 per cent compared favourably with the general trend in the business. In view of these

Pappu Jaiswal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 281/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

Taxmann.com 658 (mum-Trib) The assessment of the assessee was completed against which the assessee had filed an appeal before the commissioner (Appeals) on 02.01.2019 which was decided by commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 01.01.2022. The afore said order was passed ex party by the commissioner (Appeals) which

Branch Manager State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Administretive Office, Kanpur vs. ACIT (TDS), Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 491/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 10(5)Section 250Section 271CSection 273B

this case, Annexure A order of the Joint Commissioner shows that the assessee failed to produce any evidence to substantiate its claims. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) decided the issue by putting the burden on the revenue, which is evident from the extracted portion of the Annexure B order passed ... established a reasonable cause, as contemplated in Section 273B to resist an order of penalty under Section 271C. Therefore, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal acted illegally in cancelling the penalty levied on the assessee. Therefore, answering the question of law in favour of the revenue, this

Branch Manager State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Administretive Office, Kanpur vs. ACIT (TDS), Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 490/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 10(5)Section 250Section 271CSection 273B

this case, Annexure A order of the Joint Commissioner shows that the assessee failed to produce any evidence to substantiate its claims. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) decided the issue by putting the burden on the revenue, which is evident from the extracted portion of the Annexure B order passed ... established a reasonable cause, as contemplated in Section 273B to resist an order of penalty under Section 271C. Therefore, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal acted illegally in cancelling the penalty levied on the assessee. Therefore, answering the question of law in favour of the revenue, this

State Bank of India, Overseas Branch, Kanpur vs. ACIT(TDS), Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 488/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 10(5)Section 250Section 271CSection 273B

this case, Annexure A order of the Joint Commissioner shows that the assessee failed to produce any evidence to substantiate its claims. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) decided the issue by putting the burden on the revenue, which is evident from the extracted portion of the Annexure B order passed ... established a reasonable cause, as contemplated in Section 273B to resist an order of penalty under Section 271C. Therefore, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal acted illegally in cancelling the penalty levied on the assessee. Therefore, answering the question of law in favour of the revenue, this

State Bank of India, Overseas Branch, Kanpur vs. ACIT(TDS), Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 487/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 10(5)Section 250Section 271CSection 273B

this case, Annexure A order of the Joint Commissioner shows that the assessee failed to produce any evidence to substantiate its claims. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) decided the issue by putting the burden on the revenue, which is evident from the extracted portion of the Annexure B order passed ... established a reasonable cause, as contemplated in Section 273B to resist an order of penalty under Section 271C. Therefore, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal acted illegally in cancelling the penalty levied on the assessee. Therefore, answering the question of law in favour of the revenue, this

The Ahmedabad District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1108/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 155(18)Section 270ASection 40

income shall not include the amount of income in respect of which the assessee offers an explanation and the Assessing Officer or the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner, as the case may be, is satisfied that the explanation is bona fide

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Siddhi Vinayak Construction, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 988/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N RathiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - CIT
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 80I

made claim by way of an application without filing a revised return and, therefore, deduction could not be allowed. Tribunal, however, upheld order of Commissioner (Appeals) holding that as assessee was not making any fresh claim and it had duly furnished requisite documents for claim under said section, there