← 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)

Madhya Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 109/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 109 & 110/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel on behalf of Shri Parin Shah A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

110/Ahd/2025 Madhya Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., A.Y. 2017-18 & 2021-22 4. Aggrieved by the same assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the on the ground of delay. 5. The ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) has dismissed

ITO - 42(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Samyukta Nair, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 3 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 496/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri BhangepatilPushkaraj Ramesh
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Assessee filed rectification application under Section 154 of Act which was rejected vide Rectification Order dated 09/09/2020. 6. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) which was allowed vide order dated, 29/11/2024 and the addition of INR.6.9 Crores was deleted. 7. Now the Revenue has challenged the above

Clifford Dominic Colaco, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Natioanal Faceless Assessment Unit

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

ITA 1111/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1111/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2019-20) Clifford Dominic Colaco V/S. Assessment Unit B 521, Ganesh Darshan, बिधम Umarkhade Road, Chinch Bunder, Maharashtra- 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aazpc8794L Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Mr. Chanchal GhoshFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar
Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69A

unexplained credit u/s.68 (2) Addition of Rs. 2,58,12,178/-as unexplained money u/s 69A. Aggrieved by assessment order the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) on 26.03.2024, Subsequently, the appeal was migrated to National Faceless Appeals Centre (NFAC) On appeal the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals National

Uniphos Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cen RG IX, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3878/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2003-04
For Appellant: "I. TAXABILITY OF ADVANCE LICENCE BENEFIT RECEIVABLE: Rs.9,79
Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This group of seven appeals/cross appeals are directed against the separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal (Ld. CIT(A)) for A.Y. 2002-03 and 2003-04. In all appeals the assessee as well as revenue has raised certain common and interconnected grounds ... considered while adding 90% of the export incentive while calculating deduction under section 80HHC. Aggrieved by the action of AO, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) and submitted that AO has not considered the first proviso below section 80HHC(3). In alternative it was argued that in excluding

Asst CIT CC 38, Mumbai vs. Uniphos Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3534/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This group of seven appeals/cross appeals are directed against the separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal (Ld. CIT(A)) for A.Y. 2002-03 and 2003-04. In all appeals the assessee as well as revenue has raised certain common and interconnected grounds ... considered while adding 90% of the export incentive while calculating deduction under section 80HHC. Aggrieved by the action of AO, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) and submitted that AO has not considered the first proviso below section 80HHC(3). In alternative it was argued that in excluding

Addl CIT Cen RG IX, Mumbai vs. Uniphos Enterprises Ltd ( Formlery Known As United Phosphorus Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6236/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This group of seven appeals/cross appeals are directed against the separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal (Ld. CIT(A)) for A.Y. 2002-03 and 2003-04. In all appeals the assessee as well as revenue has raised certain common and interconnected grounds ... considered while adding 90% of the export incentive while calculating deduction under section 80HHC. Aggrieved by the action of AO, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) and submitted that AO has not considered the first proviso below section 80HHC(3). In alternative it was argued that in excluding

Uniphos Enterprises Ltd ( Formerly Known As United Phosphorus Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cen RG IX, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6224/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This group of seven appeals/cross appeals are directed against the separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal (Ld. CIT(A)) for A.Y. 2002-03 and 2003-04. In all appeals the assessee as well as revenue has raised certain common and interconnected grounds ... considered while adding 90% of the export incentive while calculating deduction under section 80HHC. Aggrieved by the action of AO, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) and submitted that AO has not considered the first proviso below section 80HHC(3). In alternative it was argued that in excluding

The ACIT CC-38, Mumbai vs. M/S. United Phosphorous Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1822/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2002-2003

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This group of seven appeals/cross appeals are directed against the separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal (Ld. CIT(A)) for A.Y. 2002-03 and 2003-04. In all appeals the assessee as well as revenue has raised certain common and interconnected grounds ... considered while adding 90% of the export incentive while calculating deduction under section 80HHC. Aggrieved by the action of AO, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) and submitted that AO has not considered the first proviso below section 80HHC(3). In alternative it was argued that in excluding

M/S. United Phosphorus Ltd(Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd), Mumbai vs. The DCIT Cen Cir-38, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1787/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2002-2003

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This group of seven appeals/cross appeals are directed against the separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal (Ld. CIT(A)) for A.Y. 2002-03 and 2003-04. In all appeals the assessee as well as revenue has raised certain common and interconnected grounds ... considered while adding 90% of the export incentive while calculating deduction under section 80HHC. Aggrieved by the action of AO, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) and submitted that AO has not considered the first proviso below section 80HHC(3). In alternative it was argued that in excluding

ITO, Ward-16(3), New Delhi vs. Mauve Star Developers P.Ltd, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6467/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraincome Tax Officer Vs. Mauve Star Developers Ward 16(3) Private Limited Room No. 304, U-7, Ground Floor, C.R. Building, Green Park Extn. New Delhi - 110002 New Delhi – 110048 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aahcm2402N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katosh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 16Section 23Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

cooked up a story for justifying the interest expenses.” Accordingly, the AO disallowed this amount of Rs.16,16,297/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of assessee deleted the disallowance by observing in para 3.2.3 are as under:- “3.2.3. The facts

Sushila Rajesh Yadav, Silvassa vs. CIT Appeal, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

ITA 1282/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1282/Srt/2024 Sushila Rajesh Yadav

Section 147Section 250Section 253(3)

evidence in support of the claim made in the affidavit. We also find that there was delay of 463 days in filing appeal before CIT(A). Before him, it was stated that the AR of the assessee misplaced the assessment order and the assessee was unaware of the assessment order

Amitkumar Pravinchandra Reshamwala, Surat vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru / ITO (Int. Tax) Surat, CPC Bengaluru / ITO Surat

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1240/SRT/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1240/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2023-24) (Hybrid Hearing) Amitkumar Pravinchandra Deputy Director Of Income-Tax, बनाम/ Reshamwala Cpc, Bengaluru/Ao (Int. Tax) Vs. B-1004, Arihant Heightsopp Surat Stuti Icon. Auravpath, Palanpur-395 005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Agspr 4047 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 90

credit of foreign taxes paid by Rs.3,34,075, which action has been upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘CIT(A)/’NFAC’]. 2. The appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject, the AO/CPC ... respect of the state taxes paid. 3. Aggrieved by the order passed u/s 154 of the Act dated 09.01.2024 the appellant filed appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) has extracted the statement of facts, grounds of appeal and submission of the appellant at pages

Amit Rasiklal Sangani, Ghod Dod Road, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 662/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.662/Srt/2024

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 245DSection 245D(3)Section 245D(4)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

also initiated penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act. Aggrieved by the addition made by AO, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 3. Before CIT(A), assessee filed written submission which are at pages 2 to 4 of the appellate order. The appellant submitted that

Balubhai Kikabhai Patel, Valsad vs. Principal Commisioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 461/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.461/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Balubhhai Kikabhai Patel Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ Nahuli, Karmbele, Umbergon, Income-Tax, Valsad, Room No. Vs. Surat-396 105 301, 3Rd Floor, Palak Arcade, Shanti Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Akqpp 2563 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 13/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 28/05/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68

amenable for revision under the provisions of Section 263 of the Act. 7. The Ld. AR also submitted that the assessee had filed appeal before CIT(A) and the CIT(A) had passed order u/s 250 dismissing the appeal. Since the order was subject-matter of the appeal ... consider enhancement of agricultural income because the appeal is now pending before him. Since the impugned issue is subject-matter of appeal before CIT(A), the powers of Ld.PCIT u/s 263(1)(c) of the Act shall not extend to such matter. 8. In view of the above factual

Mohan Singh, Samana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Barnala, Barnala

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for Statistical Purposes

ITA 1058/CHANDI/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1058/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Mohan Singh, Ito, बनाम 5, Officer Colony, Ward-1, Samana Barnala Vs. 147101 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Gdfps1021D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Arman Cajla, Advocate & Sh. Rakesh Cajla, Advocate (Virtual Mode) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Arman Cajla, Advocate and Sh. Rakesh Cajla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

find that although the appeal has been dismissed because there was a delay of 52 days in filing of the appeal before CIT(A), still then the CIT(A) was required to pass a speaking order on merit on the basis of material available on record, that was not done

Santanu Das, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-25(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2582/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

quashed. 2) For that upon facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing appeal before CIT(A) despite there being reasonable cause for the delay in filing of appeal before CIT(A). 3) For that upon facts and circumstances

Shweta Ajaykumar Paharia, Jaymala Apartment, Marve Road, Malad West, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 41(3)(1), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex

ITA 1181/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Mr. Ashutosh PatareFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Thus, the total income of the Assessee was assessed at INR.1,29,99,778/- 4. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings five notices of hearing were issued to the Assessee between 05/01/2021 to 14/01/2022 through Income Tax Business Application Portal. Since, no response

Ajinkyatara Nagari Sahkari Patpedhi Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Mumbai

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

ITA 638/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

filing the appeal and the expression ‘sufficient cause’ is being liberally construed, therefore I am inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) and the same is condoned keeping in view the un-rebutted contentions filed in the detailed affidavit of the assessee. 5. Since

Gundecha Charities, Mumbai vs. Joint Commssioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-1, Lucknow

ITA 6448/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: CIT(A) challenging the disallowance of depreciation of INR.35,27,923/-. Vide order, dated 03/10/2024, the CIT(A) dismissed the ground raised by the Assessee observing that the Assessee had failed to respond to notices issued by the CIT(A) and had failed to substantiate the claim.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul PunmiyaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 11Section 11(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

made by the Assessee invoking the provisions contained in Section 11(6) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) challenging the disallowance of depreciation of INR.35,27,923/-. Vide order, dated 03/10/2024, the CIT(A) dismissed the ground raised by the Assessee observing that

Himanshu Dalelsing Hingar, Surat vs. ITO-Ward 2(3)(6), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 1310/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shripawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1310/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Himanshu Dalelsing Hingar Vs. The Ito, 309, 3Rd Floor, Tulsi Ward - 2(3)(6), Complex,Somnath Mahadev Ni Surat Sheri, Haripura, Bamni, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Amaph6148M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 250Section 270A

Rs.16,93,520/- as against the returned income of Rs.10,38,310/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The appellant furnished the statement of facts and other relevant documents/submission before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) sustained the addition made