“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)

Sujatha P. Classik Plasto Packagings, Pondicherry vs. ITO, Ward-3, Pondicherry

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 4095/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Varun Ranganathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aroon Praasad, Addl.CIT

Section 147Section 250Section 271A

appeal are bonafide and there is reasonable cause for late filing of appeal before him. Hence, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) and also direct him to admit the issue on merits. Accordingly, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remit the matter

Sujatha P. Classik Plasto Packagings, Pondicherry vs. ITO, Ward-3, Puducherry

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 4094/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Varun Ranganathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aroon Praasad, Addl.CIT

Section 147Section 250Section 271A

Sujatha P. Classik Plasto Packagings, Pondicherry vs. ITO, Ward-3, Puducherry

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 4041/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Varun Ranganathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aroon Praasad, Addl.CIT

Section 147Section 250Section 271A

Sujatha P. Classik Plasto Packagings, Pondicherry vs. ITO, Ward-3, Puducherry

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 4040/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Varun Ranganathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aroon Praasad, Addl.CIT

Section 147Section 250Section 271A

Sujatha P. Classik Plasto Packagings, Pondicherry vs. ITO, Ward-3, Pondicherry

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 4039/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Varun Ranganathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aroon Praasad, Addl.CIT

Section 147Section 250Section 271A

Sujatha P. Classik Plasto Packagings, Pondicherry vs. ITO, Ward-3, Puducherry

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 4038/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Varun Ranganathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aroon Praasad, Addl.CIT

Section 147Section 250Section 271A

Ramesh Amratlal Brahmbhatt, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 34(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the reassessment order dated 20

ITA 9067/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarramesh Amratlal Ito Ward 34(3)(2), Brahmbhatt Kautilya Bhavan, 43 Rajnigandha, Vs. Bandra Kurla Gulmohar Cross Road No. Complex, Mumbai – 11, J V P D Scheme, 400 051 Juhu, Mumbai-400 049 Pan/Gir No. Aabpb7235R (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K. Gopal & Ms. Neha Paranjpe, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 25.02.2026

Section 10(38)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 151ASection 68

Long Term Capital Gain claimed exempt under section 10(38) on sale of shares of M/s Risa International Ltd. 5. The assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who upheld the validity of reassessment proceedings and confirmed the addition under section 68. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before

Dwarka Cement Works Limited(Converted Into Dwarka Cement Works LLP W.E.F 15-09-2022), Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6706/MUM/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

sought to be evaded, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 37,29,845/- vide order dated 04.01.2024. 7. The assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) against the order of penalty. Before the CIT(A), the assessee contended that the claim of bad debts amounting to Rs. 1.18 crores, comprising

Pooja Harwani, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(2), Agra

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in the above terms

ITA 534/AGR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Pooja Harwani Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-44, Karam Yogi Enclave Kamla Ward 2(1)(2), Nagar, Agra Agra Pan : Aaxph4452N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Kamal Bhambhani, Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 Order

Section 144Section 148Section 69A

added to the income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) – 2, Chennai. After considering the detailed submissions of the assessee, he rejected the submissions made are, it is joint account and assessee is only

Rekha Khandelwal, Rajgarh vs. ITO Ward Rajgarh, Rajgarh

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 649/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Rekha Khandelwal, Income-Tax Officer, Ward No.2, Near Chote Ward Rajgarh Hanuman Mandir, बनाम/ Rajgarh Bus Stand Vs. S.O. Rajgarh, (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Eljpk1548B Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 253(5)Section 68

Interest earned by assessee in bank a/c – Rs. 5,732/-. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first- appeal. The CIT(A) treated assessee’s first-appeal as deficient on the footing of non-payment of tax as required by section 249(4)(b) and accordingly dismissed assessee’s appeal ... assessee has filed return of income and thereafter, the Assessing Officer has initiated reassessment proceedings and passed reassessment order. Therefore, for filing the appeal before CIT(A) the question of payment of advance tax by the assessee as per clause(b) of Sub Section 4 of Section 249 does

Bhartiya Aadarsh Shikshan Samiti, Mandsaur vs. DCIT (Exemption), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose, subject

ITA 612/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 139Section 139(4)Section 143(1)

assessed total income at Rs. 4,52,77,591/- without giving exemption u/s 11/12 to assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A). The assessee made a detailed submission which is re-produced by CIT(A) in Para 4 / Pages 4 to 8 of impugned order ... which is not for AY 2017-18 under consideration. Aggrieved by order of AO, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A), however, agreed with AO’s conclusions and upheld assessment-order. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us assailing the orders

Shipij Rathore, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer 1(2), Indore

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

ITA 557/IND/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2021-2022

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

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

intimation u/s 143(1) for giving relief u/s 90/90A. However, the AO rejected assessess's application. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A) but did not get any relief. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us. - 4. The grievance of assessee in present

Rajesh Kumar Rathore, Sehore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Sehore

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 534/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2018-19 Rajesh Kumar Rathore, Ito, Ward-5 Collectors Bungalow, Sehore Sindhi Colony, Vs. Sehore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aappr2617B Assessee By Shri Harshit Choukse & Shri Kunal Agrawal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69

bench, vide two separate orders of even date authored by learned J.M., has taken a view to condone the delay in filing those appeals before CIT(A) [Para 4.3 of order of even date]. Respectfully following the same view as taken in other appeals, we condone the delay in filing ... present appeal before CIT(A) and proceed to adjudicate present appeal on merits. Page 3 of 5 Rajesh Rathore ITA No.534/Ind/2025 – A.Y. 2018-19 4. On merits, the assessee in present appeal is aggrieved by a penalty of Rs. 30,000/- imposed by AO for non-compliances of three

Audrey Bernice Roy, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam

ITA 494/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 194JSection 44A

find that the assessee aggrieved with the order of AO/CPC, Bangalore, passed under section 143(1) dated 11.01.2019, had carried the matter in appeal before CIT(A), who declined to condone the inordinate delay of 1503 days that was involved in the appeal filed before him. Page. No 9 I.T.A.No

Darshana Jatin Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7769/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 69Section 69A

account of interest income — Rs. 4,17,276/-. Thus, total income was assessed at Rs. 1,49,50,776/-. 5. The assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee raised legal as well as factual grounds. The assessee contended that notices under sections 148A

Choday Janaki Ramayya Chowdary, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 623/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

dated 19.02.2024, determined the income of the assessee at Rs.41,39,230/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before CIT(A) but without success. 6. The assessee aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. I have

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-20, Delhi vs. Jindal Pipes Ltd, Delhi

ITA 3926/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 37(1)

Lakhs as on 31.03.2020 which is more than its investments so investments were made out of own funds. 11. On appeal before CIT(A), the CIT(A) in para 6.4 and 6.5 (Page 45 of its order) has restricted the disallowance to the extent of exempt income earned during

Jindal Pipes Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-20, Delhi

ITA 3661/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 37(1)

Mithlesh Amarnath Maurya, Navi Mumbai vs. Ward 28(2)(1), Mumbai, Vashi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7731/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarmithlesh Amarnath Ito Ward-28(2)(1), Maurya It Office, Vasi Flat No.302, Plot No. 17 & Vs. Railway Station 18, Hari Darshan Chs, Building, Navi Sector-9, Ulve, Mumbai-400 703 Maharashtra-410 206, Navi Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Asxpm2717M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Prajakta Arote, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148

also unexplained. - Total addition of Rs. 57,24,000/- was made as unaccounted income. 3 Mithlesh Amarnath Maurya 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) contended that contended that the flat was purchased jointly with her husband

Chuhar Singh vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5 Chandigarh, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes subject to the above condition

ITA 531/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Cit(A). 3. That Learned Cit(A)(Nfac) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Providing Any Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard As No Notice Was Received On Email-Id Provided In Form 35 The Appeal Form Before Cita. 4. That Learned Cit(A)(Nfac) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Additions Of Rs. 2,43,60,035/- U/S 69A On Account Of Unaccounted Cash Credit.

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

That learned CIT(A)(NFAC) has erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay of 21 days in filing of appeal before CIT(A). 3. That learned CIT(A)(NFAC) has erred in law and on facts in not providing any reasonable opportunity of being heard