“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)

Choudhary Construction Co., Goregaon -W vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 31(1), Mumbai

ITA 4072/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy Svs. Acit, Circle – 31(1) Ms. Choudhari Mumbai – 400020. Constructions Co. 151/129, Sidharth Nagar, Road No. 5, Behind Cinemax Cinema, S.V. Road, Goregoan (W), Mumbai – 400062. Pan/Gir No. Aabfc2689N (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

disclosure but 8 M/s Choudhari Constructions Co, Mumbai initiated penalty proceedings and levied certain penalty under section 271(1)(c), which was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) Whether since Assessing Officer had failed to point out any discrepancy in explanation furnished by assessee and had proceeded to assess income in hands

Ram Kumar, Supaul vs. ITO, 3(5), Saharsa

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

ITA 464/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

section 250(6) which are reproduced as under: I.T.A. No.: 464/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ram Kumar. “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 the assessee's appeal merely by holding that Assessing Officer's order

Madhuri Devi, Saharsa vs. ITO Ward- 3 (4), Saharsa

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

ITA 238/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 148Section 250Section 69A

this respect, it is relevant to examine the provisions of section 250(6) which are reproduced as under: “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 the assessee's appeal merely by holding that Assessing Officer's order

Association for Welfare of the Handicapped, Kozhikode vs. The ITO Exemption Ward, Kozhikode

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

ITA 305/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Binisha Baby, Advocate

Section 1Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)

following grounds. Page 2 of 7 “A. The impugned order to the extent objected to herein is illegal, arbitrary and unauthorized. B. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in assessing the accumulated amount in excess of the permitted limit of 15% of income without considering the notice under ... made. In the matter on hand, the Appellant had filed notice in Form 10 on 27.03.2013 way before the completion of assessment. E. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the Honorable Supreme Court Judgement in the case of CIT v. Nagpur Hotel Owners Association

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Amrapali Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

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

ITA 740/JPR/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 251Section 69B

profit rate of 8 per cent under section 44AD Assessing Officer also made certain addition under section 68 in respect of unexplained cash credit Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal held that once addition was made on estimate basis under section 44AD, no separate addition could be made in respect

Rasila S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), (Erstwhile ACIT, CC-23), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that

ITA 462/MUM/2023[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2025AY 1993-94

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

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah & Ms. Mitali Parekh, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Dr. P. Daniel – Spl. Counsel

Section 144Section 220(2)

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

Rasila S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that

ITA 380/MUM/2023[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2025AY 1992-93

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

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah & Ms. Mitali Parekh, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Dr. P. Daniel – Spl. Counsel

Section 144Section 220(2)

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cen.Circle-4(1), Mumbai vs. Smt. Rasila S. Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that

ITA 1182/MUM/2023[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2025AY 1993-94

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

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah & Ms. Mitali Parekh, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Dr. P. Daniel – Spl. Counsel

Section 144Section 220(2)

Sh. Gaurang Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 1514/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, C.A. (Thr. V.C)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary (JCIT-VH)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

real in nature. Various surrounding circumstances had been relied upon by the Assessing Officer to reject the explanation offered by the Assessees. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the findings and conclusion drawn by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal concurred with the findings of fact. The findings were based on the maternal

Utkarsh Vasantkumar Mehta, Silvassa vs. DCIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1192/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat17 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals)/ NFAC dated 25th September 2024, in confirming penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (Act). Though, the assessee ... worked out the penalty of 23,900 /- in his ₹ order dated 26th October 2018. Aggrieved by the penalty, the assessee filed appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals), wherein action of AO was upheld. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before the tribunal. Utkarsh Vasantkumar Mehta AY 2015-16 (penalty

Arvindbhai Punabhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1851/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1851/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Arvindbhai Punabhai Patel The Ito बनाम/ 306, Mangaljoyt Ward-3(3)(1) V/S. Jodhpur Road, Ahmedabad – 380 015 Jodhpur 4 Rasta S.O., Ahmedabad – 380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aggpp 5322 A (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : -None- Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Dated 23.08.2024, Sustaining The Penalty Of Rs. 30,000/- Imposed Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For Non- Compliance With Statutory Notices Issued Under Section 142(1) During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. Arvindbhai Punabhai Patel Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 271(1)(b)Section 272(1)(b)Section 273B

Asst. Year : 2015-16 3 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the penalty of Rs.30,000 imposed by the learned assessing officer under section 272(1)(b) for non- compliance of notices issued

Harichand Rajkumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncc-7(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2726/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2726/Chny/2024 िनधा&रण वष&/Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, 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

Niyamathullahsyed, Chennai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 5(1) Chennai, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in

ITA 2594/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri S. Anandh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 148Section 148A

Niyamathullahsyed, Chennai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 5(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in

ITA 2593/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri S. Anandh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 148Section 148A

Niyamathullahsyed, Chennai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 5(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in

ITA 2592/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri S. Anandh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 148Section 148A

Russell Adrian Rodrigues, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 23(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No98/Mum/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Russel Adrian Rodrigues, Vs. Ito, Ward-23(3)(1), 101, Diiago, “B” Sherly Ranjan Mumbai Road, Bandra West, Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Adwpr 7259 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Subhash Chhajed, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/02/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/02/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm : The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Impugned Order Dated 28/12/2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act (“The Act”) By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Learned Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: – 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Assessee'S Appeal On Account Of Non-Compliance Of Section 249(4)(A) & 249(4)(B) Of The It Act., 1961 Completely Disregarding The Fact That Assessee Has Filed The Return & Paid The Due Tax Thereon As Mentioned In The Column 8.1 Of The Appeal Form No. 35. The Appellant Therefore Prays To Remand Back The Matter To Hon. Cit(A) For A Fresh Adjudication On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 250Section 250(6)

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

Fiero Fernandes, Mumbai vs. Jurisdiction Ward 42(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 23/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.23/Mum/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Fiero Fernandes Vs. Ito, Ward-42(2)(2), 1202 Lourdes Heritage, Mumbai Opposite Our Lady Of Lourdes Church, Orlem Malad West Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaspf 3097 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Chaitee Londhe, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/02/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/02/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm : The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 05/11/2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Learned Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Ms. Chaitee Londhe, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 148Section 149Section 151ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

find that in CIT v/s Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), reported in [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay), the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court held that Commissioner (Appeals) cannot dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution of appeal by the assessee. Consequently, we deem it fit and proper to set aside

Khushboo Amit Bhayani, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 27(2), Mumbai, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 100/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalkhushboo Amit Bhayani, A/405, Siddhivinayak Plaza Chs Ltd., Simpoli Link, Road Chikuwadi, Borivali (West), Mumbai, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra – 400092. Pan: Avlpb 8903F V/S Acit, Circle-27(2), Room No. 419, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Station Complex, ……………. Respondent Navi Mumbai - 400703 Maharashtra

For Appellant: Shri A.C. JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 68

Sameer Subhash Hosmani, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 35(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2412/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalsameer Subhash Hosmani, Flat No. 1, Shreenath Dham, W.S. Road, Opp. Jana Seva Bank, Dahisar East, Mumbai - 400068 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra Pan: Adiph3121L V/S Ito, Ward 35(3)(1), Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, ……………. Respondent Mumbai - 400051 Maharashtra Assessee By : Ms. Rakhi Dholakiya, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Rakhi Dholakiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 250(6)Section 56Section 69C

find that in CIT v/s Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), reported in [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay), the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court held that Commissioner (Appeals) cannot dismiss the appeal on account of non- prosecution of appeal by the assessee. Consequently, we deem it fit and proper to set aside

Subodh Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1453/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 11(3)(c)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

addition to deduction of 25 per cent of the unutilized amount. This claim was rejected by the Assessing Officer. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. On second appeal, the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai held as under: "Under section 11, exemption is available only