“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)

Vishal Infraglobal Pvt. Ltd., Mehsana vs. The Dy.CIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2080/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.2080/Ahd/2024 & 2081/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Vishal Infraglobal Pvt.Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ Plot No.42, 2Nd Floor Gandhinagar Circle V/S. Apple Avenue Gandhinagar B/H. Dharti Flats Gayatri Temple, Highway Mehsana – 384 002 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaecv 2187 J अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divatia, Ar Revenue By : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr & Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01 /04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR &

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270A

calls for substantial reduction and relief on the ground of telescoping additions. 3.2 It is therefore prayed that the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) should be condoned and the impugned assessment should be restored back to AO or in the alternative, the aggregate additions of Rs.3 ... calls for substantial reduction and relief on the ground of telescoping additions. It is therefore prayed that the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) should be condoned and the impugned penalty of Rs.56,38,318/-should be deleted/reduced. 5. The Ld.Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that

Saurashtra Rachnatmak Samiti Seva Trust, Rajkot, Gujarat vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru, Jurisdiction - Rajkot

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

ITA 124/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.124/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Saurashtra Rachnatmak Samiti Seva Vs. Adit, Trust. Cpc, Bengaluru. Rashtriya Shala Compound, Jurisdiction Rajkot. Rajkot- 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaats9227M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.R. Sanghvi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(1)

therefore, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the various issues raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal before CIT(A) for fresh consideration by the jurisdictional assessing officer with a liberty to the assessee to prove his case by producing sufficient evidence/material

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(6), Surat, Adajan vs. Diam International, Mahidharpura

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed whereas Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 626/SRT/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Mar 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.610 & 626/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Diam International Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), 202-B, Krishna Apartment, Surat, Aayakar Bhawan, Kansara Sheri, Mahindrapura, Majura Gate,Surat-395 001 Surat-395 003 बनाम/ Vs. M/S Diam International Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), 202-B, Krishna Apartment, Surat, Room No.405, 4Th Floor, Kansara Sheri, Anavil Business Centre, Adajan- Mahindrapura, Surat-395 Hazira Road, Surat-395 009 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaofm 4432 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.611 & 614/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2009-10) M/S Diam International Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), 202-B, Krishna Apartment, Surat, Aayakar Bhawan, Kansara Sheri, Mahindrapura, Majura Gate,Surat-395 001 Surat-395 003 Diam International बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), 202-B, Krishna Apartment, Vs. Surat, Room No.405, 4Th Floor, Kansara Sheri, Anavil Business Centre, Adajan- Mahindrapura, Surat-395 Hazira Road, Surat-395 009 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaofm 4432 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

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

also initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4.1 Aggrieved by the addition made in assessment order, assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). Before CIT(A), assesse raised grounds of appeal regarding validity of reopening as well as merit of addition. The appellant filed written submission which were

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(6), Surat, Adajan vs. Diam International, Mahidharpura

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed whereas Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 614/SRT/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Mar 2025AY 2009-2010

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

M/S Diam International, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -2(3)(7), Surat

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed whereas Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 611/SRT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

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

Anand Chhaya Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(1)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 600/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

signed by CPC on 09.03.2023, provided by the CPC of the Income Tax department, the appeal before CIT(A) could not be filed within 30 days of receipt of the intimations, due to the further reasons cited herein below. My elder real sister Mrs. Dipti Dinesh Todankar, Nee Miss Shubhada

Anand Chhaya Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(1)(6), Mumbai

ITA 599/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

Anand Chhaya Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(1)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 598/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

Anand Chhaya Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(1)6, Mumbai

ITA 597/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

Vallabhbhai Jadavbhai Kalsariya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(3)(5), Surat

In the result, ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1321/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1321/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Vallabhbhai Jadavbhai Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम/ Kalsariya 3(3)(5), Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, Vs. 120, Kamal Park Society, L..H. Near Majura Gate, Opp. New Road, Varachha, Surat-395 006 Civil Hospital, Surat 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bijpk 0301 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 13/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act’) Dated 30.10.2024 By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short ‘Ao’) U/S 144 Of The Act Dated 05.12.2019. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Making Best Judgment Assessment U/S 144 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Without Providing Reasonable Opportunity Of Hearing To The Assessee.

Section 115BSection 144Section 250Section 69A

added Rs.11,69,500/- to the total income of assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the addition made in assessment order, assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The assessee filed submission which was forwarded to the AO for remand report. Remand report of AO is at para-6.3 of the appellate

Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, Bhopal vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bhopal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 424/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

making a disallowance of Rs.1,11,68,25,418/- u/s 40(a)(ia). After completion of assessment, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) disposed assessee's first-appeal vide order dated 28.03.2024. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before Tribunal. Saharayn

Income Tax Officer Indore 5(1), Indore vs. Umang Developers, Indore

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 503/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253(5)

additions. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matters in first- Page 3 of 46 Umang Developers ITA Nos. 502 & 503/Ind/2023 - AYs. 2017-18 & 2018-19 appeal before CIT(A) and succeeded to a large extent. Now, the revenue has come in next appeals before us assailing the relief granted by CIT ... statement of one partner Shri Rajesh Naresh Chand Chelawat. However, the AO made unusual addition of Rs. 4,05,38,902/-. During first-appeal before CIT(A), the assessee re-filed all evidences including the bank statement of Shri Rajesh Naresh Chand Chelawat. The CIT(A) has vehemently considered

Income Tax Officer 5(1), Indore vs. Umang Developers, Indore

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 502/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253(5)

Smt. Ranu Malav, Jhalawar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

21. In view of the above discussion, reasons and findings, both these appeals deserve to be allowed

ITA 1445/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 115BSection 139Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271ASection 69

provision of section 69, 69A and 69B of the I.T. Act respectively The assessee challenged the assessment order by way of appeal before CIT(A). Since, the appeal filed by the assessee against said assessment order was partly allowed, the assessee is before this Appellate Tribunal. 6. Arguments heard. File

Smt. Sheela Dhakar, Jhalawar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

21. In view of the above discussion, reasons and findings, both these appeals deserve to be allowed

ITA 1443/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 115BSection 139Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271ASection 69

Yogeshkumar Manaharlal Hajariwala, Bharuch vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Bharuch

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

ITA 1271/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1271/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Processing Hearing) Yogeshkumar Manaharlal Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम/ Hajariwala 3(2)(1), Surat, Room # 416, Vs. A/6, Ambiika Niketan, B/H Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Jalaram Mandir, Diva Road, Surat-395 001 Ankleshwar, Bharuch-395 004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajmpt 4689 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/03/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69ASection 80C

added Rs.3,91,000/- and disallowed deduction claimed u/s 80C of the Act. Aggrieved by the addition made by AO, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 3. The CIT(A) issued two notices fixing the hearing on 23.03.2021 and 11.08.2022. But there was no compliance by the appellant. Hence ... substantiate the claims made in his appeal. The appellant had not been able to support his contention taken as per the grounds of appeal. The CIT(A) also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar

Malay Shaileshbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2193/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148ASection 234ASection 271ASection 69A

proceedings u/s 271AAC(1), 270A of the Act, and interest u/s 234A/B/C of the Act were initiated separately. 3. The assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A) and raised various legal and factual grounds. The main contention was that the AO passed the order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B

Harsha Mukesh Vora, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 42(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, with this direction appeal of the assessee is allowed for statical purpose

ITA 623/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalharsha Mukesh Vora Income Tax Officer 42(1)(2) 22, Vora Palace, M.G. Road, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Near Dena Bank, Kandivali West, Complex (Bkc), Mumbai 400067 Mumbai 400051 Pan No. Aaopv0839L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee Represented By Shri Priyank Ghia A/W. Simoni Shah Department Represented By Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 20/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25/03/2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act. Per: Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/ Ld. Cit(A) Dated 22.03.2023 For Assessment Year 2012-13 For Assessment Year (Ay 2012-13). 2. Rival Submissions Of Both The Parties Have Been Heard & Record Perused. The Learned Authorised Representative (Ld Ar) Of The Assessee Submit That While Filing Appeal Before Cit(A), The Assessee Has Given Email Address “Voramaulik @Yahoo.Com”. However, No Notice Was Sent Through Such Email. Notice Under Section 250 Of The Act Was Sent By Ld. Cit(A) At Different Email I.E. Prajapati.Ca@Gamil.Com. Copy Of Screen Shot Of Itba Portal Is Placed On Record. The Said Email Belongs To Her Earlier Chartered Accountant (Ca), Who Has Not Informed The Assessee Or Her Present Ca Thus, The Assessee Could Not Make Compliance In Time & Ultimately Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 254(1)

both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned authorised representative (ld AR) of the assessee submit that while filing appeal before CIT(A), the assessee has given email address “VORAMAULIK @YAHOO.COM”. However, no notice was sent through such email. Notice under section ... find that for while explaining the cause of delay the Ld. AR of the assessee vehemently, submitted that at the time of filing appeal before CIT(A) the assessee provided email of his son i.e. “VORAMAULIK @YAHOO.COM”. However, no notice was sent through such email. Notice under section

Ameesh Chandrakant Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO, WD 24(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 6264/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhshri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 254(1)

first appeal, the Id CIT(A) took shortcut route to dismiss the appeal in limine. So far as delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A), we find that assessee has paid necessary fees on 04.04.2016, i.e., within four days of receipt of impugned assessment order, 4 therefore, facts suggests

Stree Mandal Bombay, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption Ward 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6242/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhshri Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2016-17 Stree Mandal Bombay, 138, V.P. Road, Sikka Nagar, Maharashtra - 400004. Pan No. Aabts7861A ……………. Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Mehta-CA/ ARFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 245Section 250Section 254(1)

However, rectification in A.Y. 2016-17 was not considered as it was beyond four years from the date of order. The assessee filed appeal before CIT(A), but is was dismissed by holding that it was filed beyond statutory period of 30 days for filing appeal before the CIT