“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)

ACIT Circle 1(1) & Tps, Mangaluru vs. M/S the South Canara District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2332/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar – AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)

Section 145Section 22(1)

first take up the issue relating to amortization of premium on investment in government securities. Relevant grounds read as under : " i) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the appellant has to invest surplus fund in Government Securities as per RBI guidelines and the premium paid while investing

ACIT Circle1(1)& Tps, Mangaluru vs. M/S South Kanara District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2331/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar – AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)

Section 145Section 22(1)

M/S the South Canara District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Mangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 219/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar – AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)

Section 145Section 22(1)

M/S the South Canara District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Mangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 218/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar – AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)

Section 145Section 22(1)

M/S the South Canara District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Mangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 217/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar – AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)

Section 145Section 22(1)

Laxmi Siddharth Transmissions LLP, Zizamabad vs. ACIT., Circle-1, Nizamabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1247/HYD/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri A. Harish, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 203ASection 205Section 220(2)

erred in not admitting appeal on the alleged ground of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Without prejudice to the above ground, the Id. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal and thereby sustaining the order passed by the AO u/s.154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, wherein

M/S. Peak Xv Partners Advisors Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 2045/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Sri Kanchan Kaushal, A.R

Section 135Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250Section 37Section 80G

ITA Nos.2045 & 2046/Bang/2024 M/s. Peak XV Partners Advisors Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH: BANGALORE

Satia Industries Limited, Muktsar, Punjab vs. DCIT, ACIT Circle 1, Bathinda

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 527/ASR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 527/Asr/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: S/Shri Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Shri K. Mehboob Ali Khan, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80

year 2003-04 - Assessee claimed deduction under section 80-IA from its captive power plant unit - Assessing Officer allowed assessee's claim - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) reduced amount of deduction for following reasons: firstly, assessee had taken into account electricity tax levied by State Government while 527-Asr-2024 Satia ... from C.P.P. unit to its other unit including electricity tax levied by State Electricity Board was price ordinarily prevailing in open market, and, therefore, Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in disallowing assessee's claim on said ground - Held, yes - Whether as regards second ground, incomes and expenditures which were

Rajkot District Co-Op. Banks Employees M P Credit Co-Op. Ltd., Rajkot vs. The DCIT/ACIT Cir 1(1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 885/RJT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, vide order dated 23.09.2022. 2. The grievances raised by the assessee, are as follows: 1) The Learned Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi erred in rectifving its order u/s. 154 r.w.s. 250 of the Act on sole basis of decision of Gujarat High Court ... case of KatlaryKariyana Merchant SahkariSarafiMandali Ltd. (2022) 140 taxmann.com 602. 2) without prejudice to ground no. 1 above, on merits, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi erred in confirming action of assessing officer in disallowing claim of deduction of Rs. 4,83,300/- made by the Appellant

Mansharam Kaushal, Indore vs. Assessing Officer, Income Tax

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 430/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

both sides and the orders of lower-authorities perused. 3. 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

Lalita Ramniranjan Agarwal, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(4), Vadodara

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

ITA 662/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri TR Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nAnd Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member\nITA No. 662/Ahd/2023\nAssessment Year 2015-16\nLalita Ramniranjan Agarwal,\nB-201, Sandal Wood\nResidency, Urmi Char Rasta\nProductivity Road,\nVadodara-390020\nPAN: AECPA0173J\n(Appellant)\nThe ITO,\nWard-1(2)(4),\nVadodara\nVs\n(Respondent)\nAssessee by: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, A.R.\nRevenue by: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr. D.R.\nDate of hearing\n: 24-02-2025\nDate of pronouncement : 28-02-2025\nORD

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr. D.R

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

Assessing Officer rejected assessee's plea and made additions under sections 68 and 69 by relying on statements from 'entry operators' On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) accepted assessee's claim, noting that shares were purchased via Account Payee Cheques, held in a Demat Account for over 12 months, and sold through ... recognized stock exchange after payment of security transaction tax Tribunal upheld Commissioner (Appeal)'s decision, emphasizing assessee's right to correct mistakes and criticized Assessing Officer's reliance on statements from entry operators' to support additions under sections 68 and 69 as those statements were recorded in unrelated proceedings before

Oplus Steel and Power Pvt. Ltd.(Formerly Known As Swati Concast and Power Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2550/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

which are reproduced as under: I.T.A. No.: 2550/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Oplus Steel and Power Pvt. Ltd. “250(6) – 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 ... taxmann.com 348 (Madras) it has been held that a speaking order on merits with reasons and findings is to be passed by Commissioner (Appeals) on basis of ground raised in assessee's appeal; he cannot dispose of the assessee's appeal merely by holding that Assessing Officer's order

Arthi Baliga, Chennai vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1559/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1559/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthi Baliga, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 15, Flat No. 3-C, Coral Woods Income Tax, Chennai-4, Apartment, Sri Ram Nagar, South Chennai. Street, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Bkjpb5416P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate & Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-4, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

such assessment. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing sub-section, if the Assessing Officer or [the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceeding under this Act in respect of any such firm as is referred to in that sub-section

Palakkal Krishnankutty Raghavan, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Guruvayoor

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 741/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: None

Section 144Section 148Section 270ASection 69A

therefore prayed that the Tribunal be pleased to condone the delay of days and remand the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de nov consideration. If orders as prayed for are not granted, the Petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and hardship. It is therefore accordingly prayed

Palakkal Krishnankutty Raghavan, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Guruvayoor

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 740/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: None

Section 144Section 148Section 270ASection 69A

Sanjeev Kumar Kathuria, Yamuna Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Yamunanagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 329/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

merely because the family settlement was arrived in the year 2003 would not make any difference, and the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), is therefore, found to be correct although the Commissioner (Appeals) has applied section 49(1)(ii). [Para 36] ■ Therefore, agreeing with the submission of the appellant ... acquisition shall be with reference to 1-4-1981 alone. The calculation, therefore, has to be done accordingly and the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was not required to be interfered with. [Para 37] 24. We therefore find that even on this account, where the assessee has computed

Classic Growers Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2098/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2098/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Classic Growers Limited,…….….…..…………Appellant Room No. 68A, 2Nd Floor, Karnani Estate, 209, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700017 [Pan:Aabcc3758M] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,...Respondent Circle-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Vinit Jalan, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri L.N Dash, Addl. Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

Section 143(3)

submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee had made its 2 Classic Growers Limited submissions before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), but the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not apply his mind and did not consider the grounds of appeal on merit. After considering the submissions

Sunita Garg, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 43(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1382/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 1382/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Sunita Garg,……………………….…..…………Appellant 36A, Sahitya Parishad Street, Kolkata-700006 [Pan:Adspg1683J] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-43(1), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca & Shri Saurabh Gupta, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.N. Barnwal, Cit, D.R. & Smt. Ranu Biswas, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: January 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: February 26, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 68

assessed total addition at Rs.69,45,850/-. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) treated the long-term capital gain and short-term capital loss as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act and dismissed the appeal ... both the sides. It was the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee had made her submissions before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), but the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not apply his mind and did not consider the grounds of appeal on merit. Withing going into

Ganesh Mahadeorao Thaware, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward 5(3), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 623/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Kapil BahriFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69A

response of the assessee require extensive enquiries and verification which may not be possible with the machinery available at the level of Commissioner (Appeals). It would best serve in the interest of justice if the appellant gets another chance to represent his case before Ld. AO and thereupon

ACIT-Central Circle -2(1), Nagpur vs. Shri Nandkumar Khattumal Harchandani, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 411/NAG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 10(38)Section 68

Assessing Officer had not done so. Therefore, under the facts of the case, the order of the Judicial Member confirming the order of Commissioner (Appeals) deleting the impugned addition was justifiable. [Para-14]” • Hon‟ble Ahmedabad ITAT in the case of Vijaybhai H. Shah