“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)

Emmbros Autocomp Limited, Baddi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Parwanoo

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1172/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1172/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Emmbros Autocomp The Acit, बनाम Limited, Village Katha, Circle, Baddi, Parwanoo Vs. Distt. Solan 173220 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaace3489Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Raman Tiwari, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Varadhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2026 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.09.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemptions [‘(Cit(A)’]

For Appellant: Sh. Raman Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Varadhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 801CSection 80I

time of filing of return and later on decided in favour of assessee as mentioned in Point No 4 above. 6. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have seen that rejecting the appeal on technical grounds, the appellant is deprived of substantial justice as the same have been passed

ACIT Circle-12, Pune vs. Dhiraj Bhausaheb Nikam, Pune

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

ITA 1375/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle – 12, Pune Dhiraj Bhausaheb Nikam Vs. 515/516, Purva Plaza, Sadashiv Peth, Pune – 411030 Pan: Aahpn5137C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, Jcit (Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 10-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-02-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, JCIT

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(47)

given the liberty to make, or cause to be made, "further inquiry", in terms of sub-section (4) which reads as under:- “The Commissioner (Appeals) may, before disposing of any appeal, make such further inquiry as he thinks fit, or may direct the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry ... report the result of the same to the Commissioner (Appeals)”. 39. The further inquiry envisaged under Section 250(4) quoted above is generally by calling what is known as "remand report". The purpose of this enabling clause is essentially to ensure that the matter of assessment reaches finality with

Kesireddy Ravinder Reddy, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1617/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1617 & 1722/Hyd/2025

For Appellant: Sri Mohd Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 275

shall be passed- (a) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject- matter of an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 253, after the expiry of the financial year ... penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from the end of the month in which the order of 4 the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever period expires later

Dinesh Enterprises, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(8), Salem

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

ITA 165/CHNY/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

For Appellant: Mr.P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

favour of the asses- see. 5. The appeals are allowed. The order under challenge is set aside. The assessment order, that of the Commissioner (Appeals) and of the Tribunal are also set aside. The matter shall now be remanded to the assessing authority for fresh consideration, as aforestated. No order

Mom Foundation, Vellore vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-1, Chenna

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

ITA 3468/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.N. Sanjit Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 144

Saratha, Virudhunagar vs. ITO Ward 3, Virudhunagar

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

ITA 3436/CHNY/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms.D. Geetha, CAFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 148Section 249(4)

favour of the asses-see. 5. The appeals are allowed. The order under challenge is set aside. The assessment order, that of the Commissioner (Appeals) and of the Tribunal are also set aside. The matter shall now be remanded to the assessing authority for fresh consideration, as aforestated. No order

Paneerselvam Subramaniam, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3068/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Aravind, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 249(4)Section 294(4)

C-2497 Patchur Paccs, Tirupattur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Vellore

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

ITA 2818/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.G. Goudhaman, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 148Section 69

Tncp LLP., Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-1(1), Coimbatore

ITA 2603/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:2602 & 2603/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tncd Llp, 126, Kg House, Arts College Road, Coimbatore - 641 018. [Pan:Aagft-8799-R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By Ito, Vs. Non Corporate Ward -1(1), Coimbatore. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.C.I.Τ. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषण की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: आदेश /Order : 20.11.2025 : 11.02.2026 These Appeals Of The Assessee Are Filed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)') For The Assessment Year 2018-19, Both Dated 09.07.2025 Against The Assessment Orders Passed By The Ao, Nfac, Delhi, U/S.143 (3) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act') Dated 20.09.2021 & The Penalty Order Passed By The Ao, Nfac, Delhi, U/S.270A Of The Act Dated 15.01.2022 Respectively. :-2-:

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 24Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

Tncd LLP., Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2602/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:2602 & 2603/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tncd Llp, Ito, 126, Kg House, Vs. Non Corporate Ward -1(1), Arts College Road, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 018. [Pan:Aagft-8799-R] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent) अपीलाथ% की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate &'थ% की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.C.I.T

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 24Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)

determined on the basis of an estimate, if the accounts are correct and complete to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer or [the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or the :-10-: ITA. Nos:2602 & 2603/Chny/2025 Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner, as the case may be, but the method

Abdul Shukoor Sakira Banu, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Corp. Circle, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1080/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Bipin C.N., CIT

Section 144Section 148

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -1(1), Raipur vs. Bharat Agro Industries, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed as above

ITA 511/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am

For Appellant: Shri Jalaj Prakash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 40A(3)

therefore, will decide the case on merit. 9. The Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules reads as under: ‘”46A.(3) The [Joint Commissioner] (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)] shall not take into account any evidence produced under sub-rule (1) unless the Assessing Officer

Elara Capital India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 6(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7773/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

only by the disallowance of ₹39,48,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A of the Act and sustained by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). It is an admitted and undisputed fact on record that during the year under consideration, the assessee had not earned or received any income ... under section 14A(2) nor demonstrated any proximate nexus between the alleged expenditure and any income not forming part of total income. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the said disallowance primarily by placing reliance upon the amendment brought to section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022. 4. We have carefully

Jivanbhai De vs. Hibhai Sarla, Thangadh, Dist. Surendranagarvs.the ITO Ward 2, Surendranagar

ITA 521/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Ms. Devina Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR &

Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

enablement of communication window was issued by the CIT(A) and that no further notices u/s 250 of the Act were issued by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the said e-mail id but were issued on e-mail id of assessee’s accountant as stated above, before passing of impugned ... order u/s 250 of the Act. Hence, since assessee was not aware about the issue of notice u/s 250 of the Act by the Commissioner (Appeals) as assessee’s accountant neither informed to the assessee nor filed replies to said notices, therefore. impugned order u/s 250 was passed ex-parte

Jivanbhai De vs. Hibhai Sarla, Thangadh, Dist. Surendranagarvs.the ITO Ward-2, Surendranagar

ITA 519/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Ms. Devina Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR &

Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Hitesh Shantilal Mehta, Mumbai

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

ITA 7865/MUM/2025[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: adverting to the merits, it is necessary to record that Ground No. 1 raised in the cross-objection was expressly stated to be not pressed by the learned counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 of the cross-objection is dismissed as not pressed. The adjudication hereinafter is, therefore, confined exclusively to Ground No. 2 of the cross- objection, which pertains to the allowability of interest expenditure under section 57 of the Act. 4. Briefly stated, th

Section 143(3)Section 57

assessee under section 57 of the Act, amounting to Rs. 11,24,99,052/-. While the Assessing Officer disallowed the said claim, the learned Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned order, granted partial relief by restricting the deduction to the extent of interest income earned during the year. The Revenue ... total income of the assessee at Rs. 11,37,69,050/-. Against the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who disposed of the same vide order dated 31.08.2010. Being aggrieved, both the assessee and the Department carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Hitesh Shantilal Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 7798/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 268ASection 57

Rs.1,41,72,830/- for Assessment Year 2018-19. The grievance of the assessee is directed against the action of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in restricting the deduction of interest expenditure only to the extent of interest income. 7. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that ... with section 147 on 31.03.2005 determining the total income at Rs.1,92,91,060/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), and thereafter before the Tribunal. By order dated 29.11.2013, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeals and restored various issues for fresh adjudication. Subsequently, pursuant

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Hitesh Shantilal Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 7797/MUM/2025[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: the Tribunal, as stipulated under CBDT Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024. It was also not the case of the Revenue that the present appeals fall within any of the exceptions carved out in the said Circular. In view of this admitted position and having regard to the binding nature of the Circular, which expressly applies even to pending appeals, the maintainability of the Revenue's appeals stands squarely governed by the said Circular. 3

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 268ASection 57

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Hitesh Shantilal Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 7796/MUM/2025[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2000-01

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 268ASection 57

K M Textiles Export Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 10(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6750/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. The Revenue, in its appeal, has challenged the action of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting the addition of ₹4.60 crores made on account of cash deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee and further deleting ... shown as recoverable 42,80,530 1,59,37,740 6. Before the Assessing Officer as well as before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee explained that it had maintained regular books of account, including a day-to-day cash book, bank books and ledgers, all of which were duly