← All Phrases

“appeal before CIT(A)”

AppealsSection 246ASection 246A1,827 judgments

The decision most relied on for appeal before CIT(A) is CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320), cited in 2,267 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on appeal before CIT(A)

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another
118 ITR 461 · 1997 · Supreme Court
1,656
citing judgments

Appealing a tax assessment requires more than just filing the appeal; it involves actively pursuing it. The assessee must effectively engage with the appellate process.

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. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders
349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court
956
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.

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.

New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT
296 ITR 495 · 2008 · High Court
351
citing judgments

The High Court can return a reference unanswered if the assessee fails to appear or provide assistance. This illustrates the broader principle that appellate authorities have inherent power to dismiss appeals for non-prosecution when a party does not effectively pursue their case.

Judgments citing appeal before CIT(A)

Devi Manubhai Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO - Circle 32(1), Mumbai

ITA 7005/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Piyush ChhajedFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 54F

Placing reliance upon relevant extract of the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) dismissing ground number 4 raised by the Assessee in appeal before CIT(A), the Learned Departmental Representative submitted that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-25 New Delhi, Delhi vs. Faridabad Presswell Pvt Ltd, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the

ITA 2801/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2801/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Assistant Commissioner Of Faridabad Presswell Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Vs. 24, Ashoka Chamber, 5B, Central Circle-25, Room No.317, Rajindra Park, Pusa Road, 3Rd Floor, E-2, Ara Centre, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Extension, Pan No. Aaacfs815B Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250

exercise would compare and even contrast the facts there and in the case before us. In the Sanjay 19 Sawhney case in the appeal before CIT(A), besides challenging the additions made by the Assessing Officer on merits, the assessee also raised legal grounds qua the validity of the reassessment

Punyashila Automobiles, Hoshangabad vs. ITO2, Itarsi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 476/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani**

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 40

issue and the same is not a part of present appeal before us]. The assessee contested the disallowance made by AO in first-appeal before CIT(A) but did not get any relief. Now, the assessee has come before us in next assailing the orders of lower-authorities

Apex Civil Engineering, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncc-8(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2766/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2766/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Latchana, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 40Section 40(1)(ia)

assessee has submitted details as called for by the AO. Accordingly the ld AR submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) was not intentional and beyond the control of the assessee. Considering the facts and circumstances peculiar to the assessee's case, we are inclined

Hutatma Madhyavarti Sahakari Grahak Bhandar Maryadit Walwa, Sangli vs. ITO Ward - 5, Sangli

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

ITA 1834/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1834/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80P(2)(d)

Maryadit Walwa “NFAC has dismissed the appeal by passing an order u/s 250 dated 20/05/2025 by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A). Against the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 1448 dated 24/09/2022, the appeal before CIT(A) ought to have been filed before 23/09/2022

Al Falah Social Welfaresociety, Nanded vs. CIT(E), Pune

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

ITA 1833/PUN/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2026

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1833/Pun/2025

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(3)

filed an affidavit explaining the reasons which led to delay and the same reads as follows : “Reasons for delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A): 5. Appellant Trust was initially unaware of the rejection order dated 28/08/2023, as it was communicated to the email ID of the erstwhile appellant

Paras Multiplex LLP, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 21(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6649/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethparas Multiplex Llp Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 21(2)(5) Room No. 107, 1St Floor, Piramal 601, Orbit Plaza, New Prabhadevi Road, Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400025. Pan/Gir No: Aaqfp2152C (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

determining total income at Rs. 64,17,379/- as against returned income of Rs. 4,520/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued 10 notices u/s. 250 of the Act, but the assessee sought adjournment on four occasions. He did not file any reply ... case was adjourned four times. Due to failure of the assessee to furnish relevant documents in support of the grounds raised in the appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 64,12,859/- made by the AO u/s. 69C of the Act. Before us, the ld. AR requested

Ansari Steel, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 433/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Sarju Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

CIT(A).The ld.DR stated that cost may be imposed on the assessee, as the assessee has been negligent in pursuing the appeal before CIT(A). 5. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission and other materials brought on record. We note that

Insight Print Communications Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The PCIT, Mumbai-4, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3384/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21 Insight Print Communications Pcit, Mumbai-4 Private Limited A-14, Synthofine Industrial Estate, Behind Virvani Industrial Estate, Vs. Dindoshi, Off Aarey Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400063 (Pan: Aabci6530P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Lalchand Choudhary, Ca Revenue : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Revisionary Order By Ld. Pcit, Mumbai-4, Vide Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2024- 25/1074740466(1), Dated 20.03.2025 Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”) Against The Assessment Order By Assessment Unit, U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.144B Of The Act, Dated 22.09.2022, For Ay 2020-21. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Appellant Prefers The Following Appeal Against The Order Dated 20/03/2025 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-4 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Pcit ") Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act"). Each Of The Grounds Is In Alternative & Without Prejudice To Other.

For Appellant: Shri Lalchand Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 40

creature of statute. Once the assessment order is passed, if the assessee is aggrieved by that order, it has the right to appeal before CIT(A). Similarly, if the department finds that the order passed is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, statute provides mechanism

Naresh Kumar, Shanti Nagar, Model Town, Panipat, Haryana, India vs. Assessing Officer, Ward No. One, Panipat Haryana, India

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3656/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 282

against him, as he was also unaware of the fact that an assessee aggrieved by the order of Assessing officer can file an appeal before CIT(A). The Assessment order was passed on 17.12.2022, and appeal before CIT(A) is to be filed on or before 15.01.2023, However same

Naresh Kumar, Shanti Nagar, Model Town, Panipat, Haryana, India vs. Assessing Officer, Ward One, Panipat, Haryana, India

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3654/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 282

against him, as he was also unaware of the fact that an assessee aggrieved by the order of Assessing officer can file an appeal before CIT(A). The Assessment order was passed on 17.12.2022, and appeal before CIT(A) is to be filed on or before 15.01.2023, However same

Income Tax Officer Ward-2(2)(1), Ghaziabad vs. Vikas Sharma, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in AY 2013-14 is dismissed

ITA 3525/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

Rs.34,28,09,214/- u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the LT. Act. Aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A) on 01.07.2023 who vide order dated 05.03.2025 allowed the appeal of the assessee stating: 5.2.5 In the instant case, the notice

Income Tax Officer Ward-2(2)(1), Ghaziabad vs. Vikas Sharma, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in AY 2013-14 is dismissed

ITA 3495/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

Rs.34,28,09,214/- u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the LT. Act. Aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A) on 01.07.2023 who vide order dated 05.03.2025 allowed the appeal of the assessee stating: 5.2.5 In the instant case, the notice

M/S Thdc India Limited, Rishikesh vs. PCIT, Dehradun

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 69/DDN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun24 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 270ASection 80

must bi gnized as revenue, ether it is collected or not during the year. recon i” ‘ inne this addition, Appellant filed an appeal before CIT(A)/NFAC, relying ‘arious case laws, However, the Hon'ble CIT(A) sustained the additions. , Moreover the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has enhanced the taxable

Rajeev Chauhan, Gadiwan Mainpuri vs. ITO Ward2(4)5 Mainpuri, Kachehari Road Mainpuri

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

ITA 438/AGR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

material placed on record. 9. After considering the facts available on record, I observe that the reasonable cause for not filing the appeal before CIT(A) within time is submitted before me in the form of affidavit and further it is brought to my notice that the assessment notices were

Rajeev Chauhan, Gadiwan Mainpuri vs. ITO Ward 2(2)5 Mainpuri, Mainpuri

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

ITA 437/AGR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

material placed on record. 9. After considering the facts available on record, I observe that the reasonable cause for not filing the appeal before CIT(A) within time is submitted before me in the form of affidavit and further it is brought to my notice that the assessment notices were

Shree Modh Chaturvedi Rajyagor Samvay Gnati Mandal Amdawad, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2 (Exemp), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 736/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

later on contacted AO to ascertain the nature of demand 34 09/09/2022 Notice issued at mail id of kparekhasso@gmail.com 35 12/02/2025 We filed appeal before CIT(A) / NFAC for both A Y 2014-15 & 2015-16 with delay application in form of Songadhnamu 36 21/03/2025 The CIT(A)/ NFAC dismissed

Shree Modh Chaturvedi Rajyagor Samvay Gnati Mandal Amdawad, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2 (Exemp), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 735/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

later on contacted AO to ascertain the nature of demand 34 09/09/2022 Notice issued at mail id of kparekhasso@gmail.com 35 12/02/2025 We filed appeal before CIT(A) / NFAC for both A Y 2014-15 & 2015-16 with delay application in form of Songadhnamu 36 21/03/2025 The CIT(A)/ NFAC dismissed

Pitamber Wadhwani, Indore vs. DCIT-1(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 513/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2017-18 Pitamber Wadhwani, Dcit-1(1) 101, Saakaar Kunj, 3 Indore बनाम/ Shanti Nagar, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aacpw6714B Assessee By Shri Sandeep Garg, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 249Section 250Section 253(5)

filed an application for rectification u/s 154 to the very same AO but ultimately finding no outcome from AO, the assessee filed first-appeal to CIT(A) after lapse of time. Further, the assessee also explained to CIT(A) that there was Covid-19 pandemic from 15.03.2020 onwards ... willful attempt of assessee to avoid the filing Page 5 of 7 Pitamber Wadhwani ITA No. 513/Ind/2025 - AY 2017-18 of appeal to CIT(A) in time. Furthermore, out of total period from 26.12.2019 to 02.03.2021, the substantial period of 15.03.2020 to 02.03.2021 was during Covid-19 pandemic

Sangita Gupta, Indore vs. ITO 1(2) Indore, Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 302/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleand**

Section 144Section 147Section 69

assessee would need resting for a substantial period. Accordingly, Ld. AR submits that there was a "sufficient" reason for delay in filing first-appeal before CIT(A) and therefore the delay caused must be condoned. Ld. DR for revenue left to the wisdom of bench. After a careful consideration ... preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach, we take a judicious view and condone the delay occurred at the stage of filing first-appeal before CIT(A). - 4. Ld. AR next submitted that the assessment-order passed by AO is also ex-parte u/s 144 wherein one of the additions