← 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)

Vinay Dugar, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 974/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 153ASection 69C

unexplained household expenses. Aggrieved from the order of Ld. AO, the 7 ITA No. 972 To 974/JPR/2025 Vinay Dugar, Jaipur. assessee filed the appeal before CIT(A) Jaipur 4, Jaipur, which was dismissed by Ld. CIT (A) vide order dated 28-05-2025 and being dissatisfied with that, the assessee

Vinay Dugar, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 973/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 153ASection 69C

account of alleged unexplained household expenses. Aggrieved from the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed the appeal before CIT(A) Jaipur 4, Jaipur, which was dismissed by Ld. CIT (A) vide order dated 28-05-2025 and being dissatisfied with that, the assessee filed the present appeal before

Vinay Dugar, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Appeal is dismissed as

ITA 972/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 153ASection 69C

account of alleged unexplained household expenses. Aggrieved from the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed the appeal before CIT(A) Jaipur 4, Jaipur, which was dismissed by Ld. CIT (A) vide order dated 28-05-2025 and being dissatisfied with that, the assessee filed the present appeal before ... account of alleged unexplained household expenses. Aggrieved from the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed the appeal before CIT(A) Jaipur 4, Jaipur, which was dismissed by Ld. CIT (A) vide order dated 28-05-2025 and being dissatisfied with that, the assessee filed the present appeal before

Munjal Auto Industries Limited, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with the direction that the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh in accordance with law

ITA 271/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Munjal Auto Industries Ltd. Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) 187 Gide Estate Vadodara. Waghodia Dist. Vadodara-391 760 Gujarat. Pan: Aaacg 8588 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ar Assessee By : Shri Yoeesh Mishra, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/09/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Yoeesh Mishra, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 250Section 251Section 270ASection 80G

normal provisions of the Act. Book profit under section 115JB was computed at Rs.54,84,45,854/-. 5 3.5 The assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The appeal was instituted on 19.04.2021 and later migrated to NFAC. Notices of hearing u/s 250 were issued on 18.11.2022 and 14.10.2024. However

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhandewalan vs. Kalamkari Designs Private Limited, New Delhi

ITA 342/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1

well as from in house job work party. 9. Aggrieved by the order passed by the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A). 10. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted an application under Rule 46A along with the following additional evidences: Details of ESI/PF/LWF deducted ... well as from in house job work party. 9. Aggrieved by the order passed by the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A). 10. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted an application under Rule 46A along with the following additional evidences: Details of ESI/PF/LWF deducted

Dy. CIT, CC-4, Delhi, Jhandewalan vs. Kalamkari Designs Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 341/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1

well as from in house job work party. 9. Aggrieved by the order passed by the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A). 10. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted an application under Rule 46A along with the following additional evidences: Page | 15 ITA No.2696/Del/2023

Dy. CIT, CC-04, Delhi vs. Kalamkari Designs Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 340/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1

well as from in house job work party. v. Aggrieved by the order passed by the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A). 10. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted an application under Rule 46A along with the following additional evidences: Page | 15 Details

Reliance Ritu Kumar Pvt. Ltd., (Earlierknown As Ritika Pvt.Ltd., )R, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, Delhi

ITA 231/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1

well as from in house job work party. 9. Aggrieved by the order passed by the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A). 10. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted an application under Rule 46A along with the following additional evidences: Page | 15 ITA No.2696/Del/2023

Reliance Ritu Kumar Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Ritika Private Limited), Tilak Marg vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, Delhi, Central Circle

ITA 3053/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1

well as from in house job work party. 9. Aggrieved by the order passed by the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A). 10. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted an application under Rule 46A along with the following additional evidences: Page | 15 ITA No.2696/Del/2023

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Reliance Ritu Kumar Pvt. Ltd.(Earlier Known As Ritika Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi

ITA 2944/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1

well as from in house job work party. 9. Aggrieved by the order passed by the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A). 10. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted an application under Rule 46A along with the following additional evidences: Page | 15 ITA No.2696/Del/2023

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-04, New Delhi vs. Reliance Ritu Kumar Pvt. Ltd.(Earlier Known As Ritika Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi

ITA 2748/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1

well as from in house job work party. 9. Aggrieved by the order passed by the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A). 10. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted an application under Rule 46A along with the following additional evidences: Page | 15 ITA No.2696/Del/2023

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Reliance Ritu Kumar Pvt. Ltd.(Earlier Known As Ritika Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi

ITA 2696/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1

well as from in house job work party. 9. Aggrieved by the order passed by the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A). 10. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted an application under Rule 46A along with the following additional evidences: Page | 15 ITA No.2696/Del/2023

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-04, New Delhi vs. Reliance Ritu Kumar Pvt. Ltd.(Earlier Known As Ritika Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi

ITA 2279/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1

well as from in house job work party. 9. Aggrieved by the order passed by the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A). 10. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted an application under Rule 46A along with the following additional evidences: Page | 15 ITA No.2696/Del/2023

Lakhmi Chand Khushiramani, Gwalior vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Gwalior

ITA 284/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 294(4)(b)Section 69A

careful consideration of the above facts and circumstances, as the appellant has failed to fulfill the mandatory and essential conditions for admission of appeal before CIT(A) as per sec. 249(4)(b), the present appeal is liable to be held as not eligible for admission.” 5. Aggrieved with

Amir Traders, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (2)(6), Surat

ITA 856/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.856/Srt/2023

Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, 4, Surat vs. Kishorkumar Dhirajlal Kathrotiya, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 434/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar& Shri Buayananda Prusethareata /Ita No.434/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2015-16)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 292CSection 69B

being unexplained investment u/s.69B of the Act of Rs.10,00,00,000/- in the project land. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assesseepreferred appeal before CIT(A) on 27.04.2022. The CIT(A) observed that the total area of the land originally owned by the appellant was 5808 sq. yards

Ashok Nariyani, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-5, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1532/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh.Deepak Sharma, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.-DR
Section 115BSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

3087/Del/2017 vide order dated 22.11.2017 Assessment made against the principal of natural justice: 1. During the course of appeal before CIT(A)-4, Jaipur, detailed Paper Book, containing the replies submitted before Ld.AO, Charts of Cash Deposits and withdrawals, Bank Books, stock and sale registers for both Rajasthan and Haryana

Silverton Pulp and Papers Private Limited, Muzaffarnagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Dehradun

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

ITA 212/DDN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

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

Section 56(2)(x)

lacs was also made out of various expenses. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee is in appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and upheld the addition of Rs. 30.14,500/- made

Eagle Fashions Private Limited, Surat vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)(1), Surat

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1252/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1252/Srt/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Eagle Fashions Private The Deputy Director Of Income Limited, 201, 2Nd Floor बनाम/ Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru Orleaans Building Current Jurisdiction: V/S. Near City Centre Deputy Cit Sosyo Circle, Magdalla Circle-1(1)(1), Surat Bharthana B.O., Surat "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaace 5107 F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/09/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit (A), Prayagraj [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld.Cit(A)’] Dated 30/09/2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A) In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Holding The Same As Time- Barred. Eagle Fashions Private Limited Vs. Dcit Asst. Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Revenue by holding that there was no mistake as ITR was processed based on information provided by assessee. Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) on 11.08.2020 against rectification order dated 23:07:2020 which was in time. The Ld. CIT(A), however, vide order dated 19.02.2023 rejected assessee's appeal

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal vs. Vindhyachal Brothers, Obaidullaganj

Appeal is dismissed being devoid of

ITA 380/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2018-19 Acit Vindhyachal Brothers, Bhopal Patwari Halka No.10, बनाम/ Hoshangabad Road, Vs. Obaidullaganj (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aahfv2315A Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assesseeby Shri Yashwant Sharma, Ar Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025

Section 143(3)

that any ‘malafide’ or ‘afterthought’ was involved in assessee’s reply dated 16.06.2021. The 3rd stage of proceeding was by way of first-appeal before CIT(A). The order passed by CIT(A) clearly shows that he has gone into the submissions made by assessee before AO and repeated before