“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)

Sakshi Sanjay Mishra, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 2312/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 68

prosecution but has ignored the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act which reads as under: “250….. …..…… (6) The order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon

Devendra Gupta, Bhopal vs. ITO-1(2), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 583/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

passing of ex-parte order by CIT(A). That apart, 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

Amman Spintex, Erode vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Erode

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

ITA 2079/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2079 & 2080/Chny/2024 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Amman Spintex, The Dy. Commissioner Of No.155, Mill Road, Vs. Income Tax, Gobichettipalayam, Circle-1, Erode – 638 476. Erode. [Pan: Aazfa 7154J]

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Mrs. G. Saratha, Addl. CIT

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 273BSection 80I

under: “1) The Impugned Order is unfair, excessive, unwarranted and liable to be quashed. 2) The Assessing Officer and the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not entertaining and considering the bona fide explanation on the part of the Appellant for not rectifying the mistake made in filing the return ... income, until it was pointed out by the Department in the Assessment Proceeding. 3) Without prejudice, the Assessing Officer and the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not considering that the Appellant did not file any appeal against the Assessment Order and immediately paid the respective demand, thereby showing that

Sr Builders and Developers, Indore vs. The ITO-1(2), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 648/IND/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Mar 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

Builders and Developers ITA No. 648/Ind/2024 - AY 2006-07 2. 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

Perumal Pillai Sreenivasan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-9(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3186/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 3186/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Perumalpillai Sreenivasan, Income Tax Officer, Block No.20 Flat 3078, Vs. Non Corp Ward -9(1), Jevvan Bheem Collector Nagar, Chennai. Anna Nagar West, Chennai – 600 101 [Pan: Bbbps-1465-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Abhishek Murali, Ca : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 26.02.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 18.03.2025 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 06.11.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Order Of The Ao/Cit(A) Is Erroneous, Is Contrary To Law, Opposed To Principles Of Natural Justice & The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. Cit(A) Has Failed To Adjudicate The Case: 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Failed To Adjudicate The Appeal On Incorrect Grounds.

For Appellant: 5. The Learned AO/CIT(A) failed to note that the cash deposited into the account

Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

Provided that, in a case falling under clause (b) and] on an application made by the appellant in this behalf, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)) may, for any good and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing, exempt him from the operation ... payable by him:] Provided that, in a case falling under clause (b) and on an application made by the appellant in this behalf, the Commissioner (Appeals) may, for any good and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing, exempt him from the operation of the provisions of that clause

Growmore Leasing & Investment Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-4(1) (Erstwhile DCIT-31, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 660/MUM/2023[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, Spl. Counsel

Section 144

lodged the shares for transfer. Considering these circumstances, in our opinion, we find no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and as confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. The questions of law therefore, as raised would not arise and consequently, the appeal dismissed.” 10. Finding parity

Growmore Leasing and Investments Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-4(1) (Erstwhile DCIT-31, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 452/MUM/2023[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, Spl. Counsel

Section 144

Chandra Prakash Jain, Jaipur vs. Circle 1, Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 66/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, Joint CIT, Ld

Section 10(38)Section 139(4)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 37Section 69C

persons to whom the transactions were done, have to necessarily fail. In such factual scenario, the Assessing Officers as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) have adopted an inferential process which is found to be a process which would be followed by a reasonable and prudent person. The Assessing Officers ... Commissioner (Appeals) have culled out proximate facts in each of the cases, took into consideration the surrounding circumstances which came to light after the investigation, assessed the conduct of the assessee, took note of the proximity of the time between the buy and sale operations and also the sudden

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena, Jaipur

ITA 288/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev sogani, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

this section, the Commissioner is also entitled to admit additional evidence which he may think necessary for facilitating further enquiry. The powers of the Commissioner (Appeals) are undoubtedly very wide. Even otherwise, the powers of a statutory appellate authority are co-terminus with the powers of the authorities ... cannot be any dispute to this principle of law. [Para 8] Rule 46A provides for production of additional evidence before the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals). It would appear from clauses (b) and (c ) of sub-rule (1) of rule 46A that the appellate authority is empowered to allow

Mahalaxmi Infracontract Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1702/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V Nandakumar, CIT DR & B.P. Srivastava

Section 10(2)(xv)Section 3(2)Section 3(3)Section 3(5)Section 37

brought on record, being corroborative evidence to connect seized material with the assessee, there was no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting the addition. In the case of Pradeep Amrutlal Runwal 47 taxmann.com 293, the IT AT held that where the Assessing Officer made

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle)-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Mahalaxmi Infracontract Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1578/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V Nandakumar, CIT DR & B.P. Srivastava

Section 10(2)(xv)Section 3(2)Section 3(3)Section 3(5)Section 37

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle) -1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Mahalaxmi Infracontract Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1577/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V Nandakumar, CIT DR & B.P. Srivastava

Section 10(2)(xv)Section 3(2)Section 3(3)Section 3(5)Section 37

Sudhir S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-4(1) (Erstwhile DCIT, CC -31), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 6 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 451/MUM/2023[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2025AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Dr. P. Daniel – Spl. Counsel

Section 234A

Tribunal in all these cases, wherein identical facts and issues are involved, therefore, we also set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore back the entire issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment with similar directions. The Assessing Officer shall provide

Hemlata Jain, Bhopal, M.P vs. The Assessment Unit, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 607/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Kailaswasi Narayan Alias Bapu Patil Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Kolhapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 620/PUN/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: CA Supriya PowarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 3Section 68

wish to bring the following additional facts on record that are relevant for the disposal of the Appeal: 1. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) applied the provisions of S. 115BBC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and directed the AO to compute the tax of the appellant u/s. 115BBC ... There was no further order passed by the Learned AO in the matter. [Para 5.3.3 and 5.3.4, page 10-11 of the order of Commissioner (Appeals)] 2. Claim for benefit of exemption of Section 10(23)(iiiad) of Income Tax Act 1961, was rejected by the commissioner appeals

Idris Mikdad Attarwala, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 75/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankaridris Mikdad Attarwala, V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of 1603 Sumer Park, Seth बनाम Income Tax, Central Circle – Motishah X Lane, Byculla, 3(1), Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Mumbai 400 027, C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Maharashtra Complex, Bandra(E) Mumbai - 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Abupa1037C Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh & Shri A.Pawar,ARsFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani,(Sr. DR)

Section 133ASection 147Section 148

Idris Mikdad Attarwala, Mumbai consider all points of issue and give a finding. Further, section 250 clearly provides that the Commissioner (Appeals) may make further inquiry or direct the Assessing officer to undertake further inquiry before disposing of the appeal and reports the results of the inquiry to the commissioner ... Appeals) and also, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) shall state the point of determination, decision and the reasons for such decision while disposing of the appeal in writing. From the plain reading of the section, it emerges that the CIT (A) shall, by himself or through an assessing officer

ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar vs. Sh. Tara Chand Gupta, Alwar

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

ITA 514/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम ACIT, Vs. Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Kesh

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR a

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

reasons therefor, treated difference amount as unexplained investment in stock from undisclosed sources and added same to total income of assessee under section 69B Commissioner (Appeals) deleted impugned addition by referring to a chart indicating stock position as on 28-3-2005 submitted to bank with Sh. Tarachand Gupta stock ... position as per stock register on 28-3-2005 Tribunal held that assessee was bound to explain difference either before Assessing Officer or before Commissioner (Appeals) or before Tribunal and same was not done It taking view that excess stock represented income of assessee from undisclosed sources, set aside order

Sh. Tarachand Gupta, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

ITA 449/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Ke

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR a

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

Sh. Tarachand Gupta, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

ITA 448/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

reasons therefor, treated difference amount as unexplained investment in stock from undisclosed sources and added same to total income of assessee under section 69B Commissioner (Appeals) deleted impugned addition by referring to a chart indicating stock position as on 28-3-2005 submitted to bank with stock position ... stock register on 28-3-2005 Tribunal held that assessee was bound to explain difference either before Assessing Officer or before Commissioner (Appeals) or before Tribunal and same was not done It taking view that excess stock represented income of assessee from undisclosed sources, set aside order of Commissioner (Appeals

Sh. Tarachand Gupta, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

ITA 447/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

reasons therefor, treated difference amount as unexplained investment in stock from undisclosed sources and added same to total income of assessee under section 69B Commissioner (Appeals) deleted impugned addition by referring to a chart indicating stock position as on 28-3-2005 submitted to bank with stock position ... stock register on 28-3-2005 Tribunal held that assessee was bound to explain difference either before Assessing Officer or before Commissioner (Appeals) or before Tribunal and same was not done It taking view that excess stock represented income of assessee from undisclosed sources, set aside order of Commissioner (Appeals