← 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)

Madhu Khatri, Singapore vs. DCIT Circle 3(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1032/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year :2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Naman Maloo, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep S, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 10Section 10(14)Section 143(1)Section 90

Processing Centre (CPC) disallowed the FTC claim while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act, against which assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) and Id. CIT(A) also disallowed the claim of FTC on the ground that Form 67 was filed after due date

Satendra, Garhmukteshwar, Hapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(5) Hapur, National Faceless Appeal Centre

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2959/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jitin Kumar Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 148

parte proceedings dismissed appeal of the assessee. The ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee is an illiterate person. While filing appeal before CIT(A), in Form No. 35 email address of advocate who was initially handling the case of assessee was given, he never communicated the notices to the assessee

Binod Kumar Kedia, Gopalganj vs. ITO, Ward- 2 (4), Siwan

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

ITA 72/PAT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 72/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Binod Kumar Kedia,……………...…….…………Appellant S/O Latejeevan Ram Kedia, Marwari Mohalla, Gopalganj-841428, Bihar [Pan:Afhpk1798P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………....Respondent Ward-2(4), Siwan Appearances By: Shri K.P. Jalan, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

Section 148Section 250Section 50C

states “demand u/s 250 was uploaded on 30.03.2019 without uploading of any order and written request filed for such order to file appeal before CIT(A), Muzaffarpur on 01.05.2019, but was not still received. Therefore, delay in filing of appeal is for 10 days and prayed for condonation

Madhya Bharat International Pvt Ltd, Indore vs. NFAC New Delhi, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 642/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)

addition of Rs. 1,33,00,000/- made in assessment-order. Against aforesaid assessment-order, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) and the CIT(A) has already decided assessee’s appeal vide order dated 25.10.2024, a copy of the order is placed on record. Drawing our attention to Para

Madhya Pradesh Building and Other Construction Welfare Board, Bhopal vs. DCIT(Exemption), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 382/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2017-18 Madhya Pradesh Building Dcit (Exemption) & Other Construction Bhopal Welfare Board, बनाम/ 82- Harshvardhan Nagar, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Aaalm0795N Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2025

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

order u/s 144 dated 30.03.2022 determining total income as high as Rs. 260,38,02,571/-. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A). 2.1 During first-appeal, the CIT(A) issued three notices to assessee but the same also remained uncompiled. Ultimately, the CIT(A) also ... deliberated the submissions made by assessee in above Written-Synopsis and requested to condone the delay which had occurred in filing first appeal before CIT(A) and also restore the present matter to the file of AO for a fresh adjudication. 5. Ld. DR for revenue agreed with the submission

Mahesh Khandelwal, Indore vs. Addl JCIT (A) -1 Jaipur, Jaipur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 330/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

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

Section 139(1)Section 139(7)Section 143(1)

total income at Rs. 7,44,040/- after making an addition of Rs. 2,70,000/-. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A), however, dismissed assessee’s appeal on the ground of inordinate delay of more than 12 years in filing ... assessee has come before this bench for redressal of grievance. 4. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee filed first-appeal to CIT(A) on 12.04.2023 against the impugned intimation passed by AO u/s 143(1). He drew us to the copy of intimation u/s 143(1) issued

Ashvinkumar Naranbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, TDS-Ward-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 722/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.722/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Ashvinkumar Naranbhai Patel The Ito बनाम/ 43, Shankar Society Part-1 Tds Ward-1 V/S. Near Meerambica Road Ahmedabad – 380 014 Opp. Amikunj Bus Stand Naranpura Ahmedabad – 380 013 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aeipp 9274 R अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.02.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Confirming The Demand Raised Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) By The Ito, Tds Ward 1, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”], In Relation To A.Y. 2015–16. Ashvinkumar Naranbhai Patel Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.DR
Section 194ISection 2(14)(iii)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271C

separate proposal for penalty under section 271C was also initiated. The assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). However, despite three notices dated 22.09.2022, 27.02.2023 and 26.02.2025, the assessee failed to make any submission. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal citing non-prosecution and upheld the AO’s order in toto

Advance Lifespaces Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 411/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18 Advance Lifespaces Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of S-202/B/4/205, City Centre, Income Tax, Vs Nr. Idgah Gate, Asarwa, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380016 Ahmedabad [Pan No.:Aajca2338M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri P. D. Shah, Ar & Shri Saiyam Shah, Ar Respondent By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28.07.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Dated 03.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (In Short “Nfac”), Delhi Arising Out Of The Rectification Order Passed Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Relating To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Noted That There Is A Delay Of 145 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Explained Vide Notarized Affidavit Stated Originally The Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee By Paying Appropriate Fees On 30.08.2024 By E-Filing. However, There Is Some Mistakes In Form No. 36 Which Was Required To Be Rectified, The Same Was Rectified & Filed On 21.02.2025 Thereby The Registry Has Noted That There Is A Delay Of 145 Days. In View A.Y. 2017-18. 2 Of The Explanation Offered By The Assessee, The Delay Of 145 Days In Filing Of The Above Is Hereby Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri P. D. Shah, AR & Shri Saiyam Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 154

Therefore, Rectification Order was passed rectifying the total income to Rs. 2,88,52,653/-. 4. Aggrieved against the revision order, assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) claiming that it is a debatable issue which cannot be rectified under Rectification Order. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the submissions and dismissed

Equipment Fabricators, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Circle-4(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 881/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri. B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

bought to my attention by the auditor at the time of interim audit pursuant to which I took necessary steps to file the appeal before CIT(A), which was filed on 20.02.2023 with a delay of 1504 days. I therefore submit that the delay of 164 days in filing ... oversight and hence, the CIT(A) ought to have taken a liberal stand and should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The CIT(A) having rejected the appeal has confirmed the addition of Rs.19,79,062/- made by the AO towards depreciation. It is submitted that

Altret Industries Private Limited, Saiyedpura Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer TDS CPC, CPC

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

ITA 855/SRT/2024[2016-201]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2025AY 2016-201

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

Section 200A(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

CIT(A). Even before us, the assessee has not been able to give any cogent reason for such inordinate delay in filing appeal before CIT(A). The appellant has not furnished any documentary evidence of service of the order, as mentioned in Form 35. The appellant is a limited company ... dismissed the appeal by the assessee against refusal of CIT(A) to condone the inordinate delay of 10 years in filing appeal before CIT(A). The facts and circumstances of the present case are similar. The assessee in the present case before us has filed the appeal before CIT

Altret Industries Private Limited, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officxer, TDS, CPC

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

ITA 818/SRT/2024[A.Y. 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

Section 200A(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

CIT(A). Even before us, the assessee has not been able to give any cogent reason for such inordinate delay in filing appeal before CIT(A). The appellant has not furnished any documentary evidence of service of the order, as mentioned in Form 35. The appellant is a limited company ... dismissed the appeal by the assessee against refusal of CIT(A) to condone the inordinate delay of 10 years in filing appeal before CIT(A). The facts and circumstances of the present case are similar. The assessee in the present case before us has filed the appeal before CIT

Altret Industries Private Limited, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS, CPC

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

ITA 816/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

Section 200A(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

CIT(A). Even before us, the assessee has not been able to give any cogent reason for such inordinate delay in filing appeal before CIT(A). The appellant has not furnished any documentary evidence of service of the order, as mentioned in Form 35. The appellant is a limited company ... dismissed the appeal by the assessee against refusal of CIT(A) to condone the inordinate delay of 10 years in filing appeal before CIT(A). The facts and circumstances of the present case are similar. The assessee in the present case before us has filed the appeal before CIT

Altret Industries Private Limited, Altret House, Saiyedpura vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS, CPC, Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

ITA 815/SRT/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

Section 200A(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

CIT(A). Even before us, the assessee has not been able to give any cogent reason for such inordinate delay in filing appeal before CIT(A). The appellant has not furnished any documentary evidence of service of the order, as mentioned in Form 35. The appellant is a limited company ... dismissed the appeal by the assessee against refusal of CIT(A) to condone the inordinate delay of 10 years in filing appeal before CIT(A). The facts and circumstances of the present case are similar. The assessee in the present case before us has filed the appeal before CIT

Altret Industries Private Limited, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS, CPC, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

ITA 814/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

Section 200A(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

CIT(A). Even before us, the assessee has not been able to give any cogent reason for such inordinate delay in filing appeal before CIT(A). The appellant has not furnished any documentary evidence of service of the order, as mentioned in Form 35. The appellant is a limited company ... dismissed the appeal by the assessee against refusal of CIT(A) to condone the inordinate delay of 10 years in filing appeal before CIT(A). The facts and circumstances of the present case are similar. The assessee in the present case before us has filed the appeal before CIT

Altret Industries Private Limited, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS, CPC, Surat

ITA 812/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing) Si. No.

Section 200A(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

CIT(A). Even before us, the assessee has not been able to give any cogent reason for such inordinate delay in filing appeal before CIT(A). The appellant has not furnished any documentary evidence of service of the order, as mentioned in Form 35. The appellant is a limited company

Altret Industries Private Limited, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS, CPC, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

ITA 811/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing) Si. No.

Section 200A(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

CIT(A). Even before us, the assessee has not been able to give any cogent reason for such inordinate delay in filing appeal before CIT(A). The appellant has not furnished any documentary evidence of service of the order, as mentioned in Form 35. The appellant is a limited company ... dismissed the appeal by the assessee against refusal of CIT(A) to condone the inordinate delay of 10 years in filing appeal before CIT(A). The facts and circumstances of the present case are similar. The assessee in the present case before us has filed the appeal before CIT

Altret Industries Private Limited, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS, CPC, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

ITA 810/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

Section 200A(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

CIT(A). Even before us, the assessee has not been able to give any cogent reason for such inordinate delay in filing appeal before CIT(A). The appellant has not furnished any documentary evidence of service of the order, as mentioned in Form 35. The appellant is a limited company ... dismissed the appeal by the assessee against refusal of CIT(A) to condone the inordinate delay of 10 years in filing appeal before CIT(A). The facts and circumstances of the present case are similar. The assessee in the present case before us has filed the appeal before CIT

Rajesh, Noida vs. ITO Ward-5(3)(1), Gautam Budh Nagar

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

ITA 102/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the same. Thus, the impugned order has no merit as provided under Section 250 of the Act.

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50C

value of the property, as per circle rate, was utilized by AO. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee is in appeal before CIT(A), the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under: A.Y. 2013-14 Rajesh Vs. ITO 4 5.1. The assessee

Arunima Adcon Sevices (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward -3(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 5444/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 234ASection 56Section 68Section 73A

filed part details. The AO initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee company. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee is in appeal before CIT(A), the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte on 18-09-2017. Aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed

Arcpl Developers Private Limited, Indore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 731/IND/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 156A(1)Section 5

after making certain additions and determining total income at Rs. 11,65,83,363/-. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A) on as many as 9 grounds as re-produced by CIT(A) in Para 3 of impugned order. During pendency of first appellate proceedings