“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)

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai vs. Bombay Rayon Holdings Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals by the Revenue having common ground are dismissed

ITA 5604/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C, Kanojiya, CIT DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

levying penalty of ₹2,97,86,762/- under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before CIT(A) who deleted the penalty so levied. Against this, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. Bombay Rayon Holdings

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai vs. Bombay Rayon Holdings Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals by the Revenue having common ground are dismissed

ITA 5603/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C, Kanojiya, CIT DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Novanet India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward Ward 15(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4505/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Shah a/w Jainam

Section 112Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 201Section 250Section 9(1)(vii)

order passed u/s 201 by a Subordinate officer without appreciating the fact that order passed u/s 201 is a pending subject matter of appeal before CIT(A) b) On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in passing adverse order

Yash Ashitbhai Vashi, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, International Taxation, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1476/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1476/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Yash Ashitbhai Vashi The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ E/1, Pranav Apartment Ward-1, V/S. Shreyas Tekra International Taxation Ambawadi Ahmedabad-380 014 Ahmedabad – 380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aiipv 9386 Q (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : None (Written Submission) Revenue By : Shri Waghe Prasadrao, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24 /02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26 /02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: None (Written Submission)For Respondent: Shri Waghe Prasadrao, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 270A(9)Section 54Section 54B

misreporting of income were initiated. Yash Ashitbhai Vashi vs. The ITO Asst. Year : 2018-19 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of deduction under Section 54, as the new property was registered solely in the name of the assessee’s mother

Kannapiran, Puducherry vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Puducherry

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

ITA 3195/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Mr. V.Meenakshi Sundar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 250Section 271A

appeal in limine without condoning delay of 102 days in filing appeal before him. The Ld.AR submitted reasons stated for belated filing of appeal before CIT(A) has been extracted at para 2.7 of the impugned order of the CIT(A). The reasons stated for belated filing of appeal before ... declared as NPA. In view of the evidences/ documents produced now before the Tribunal, we condone delay of 102 days in filing appeal before CIT(A). It is also brought on record as against quantum assessment, and appeal is pending adjudication before CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice

Palanisamy Ravisankar, Aravankadu vs. ITO, Ward I(7), Salem

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

ITA 3182/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3182/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Palanisamy Ravisankar Income Tax Officer, Aravankadu, Sanyasipatti Post, Vs. Ward-1(7) Sankari West Salem. Namakkal Dist.-637 303. Pan: Allpr-2541-P

For Appellant: Ms.N.V.Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 250

appeal, has been extracted at para 2 of the impugned order of the CIT(A). The reasons stated for belated filing of appeal before CIT(A) was that due to extreme financial difficulties the business of the assessee, including seizure of lorries by lenders, hence the delay. It was submitted ... appeal in limine, without condoning delay of 1393 days in filing the appeal before him. The reasons stated for belated filing of appeal before CIT(A) was due to extreme financial difficulties, the business of the assessee has come to grinding halt, including seizure of lorries by lenders

Sushma Singhal, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(2), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed, but only for statistical purposes

ITA 86/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 69

careful consideration of the above facts and circumstances, as the appellant has failed to fulfill the necessary 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 and hence, the appeal

Manish Devendrakumar Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in full

ITA 918/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.918/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Manish Devendrakumar Shah The Ito बनाम/ 206, 2Nd Floor, Kalash 1 Ward-5(3)(1) V/S. Navrangpura Ahmedabad Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aqjps 4226 K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divatia, Ar & Shri Samir Vora, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20 /02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, AR &For Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 68

before investment. The AO Denied cross-examination request, stating that the Investigation Wing’s report was sufficient evidence. 3. The assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A) challenging the reopening under section 147 and addition under section 68 of the Act. The CIT(A) upheld the reopening, holding that

Mukesh K. Mulchandani, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 707/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.707/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2014-15) बनाम/ Mukesh Kevalram The Income Tax Mulchandani Officer Vs. A-137,Sarboday Nagar Soc. Ward-4(2)(3) (No.2) Ahmedabad–380 015 Sola Road,Ghatlodia Ahmedabad – 380 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aewpm 4974 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Parin Shah, Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 22/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 25 /02/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Appellate Order Dated 14/08/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Relating To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Filed His Return Of Income For Ay 2014-15 On 18/10/2014 Mukesh K. Mulchandani Vs. Ito Asst.Year - 2014-15 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.8,64,710/-. The Assessee Is A Civil Contractor & Doing Business In The Name Of Proprietary- Concern, M/S.M.K. Builders. Regular Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Act Was Completed On 24/11/2016 Assessing Total Income At Rs.8,69,220/-. The Assessment Was Revised U/S.263 Of The Act To Make Addition Of Rs.80 Lakhs On Account Of Unexplained Credit In The Books Of The Assessee As ‘Advance’ Received. Another Addition Of Rs.24,03,750/- Was Made By The Ao On Account Of Unexplained Credit As Per Form 26-As.

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

made by the AO on account of unexplained credit as per Form 26-AS. 3. Aggrieved against the assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.80 lakhs as the assessee failed to explain with necessary details on the second issue

ACIT 6(3), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4385/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Grasim Industries Ltd ( Corporate Finance Division), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

ITA 3762/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 43B

However, the Assessing Officer was not convinced, and therefore, made disallowance of INR.4,57,39,010/- under Section 43B of the Act. In appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the aforesaid disallowance following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the Assessee for the preceding assessment years. Being aggrieved

Isha Agrawal, Khargone vs. PCIT-Indore-1, Indore

In the result, both of the issues are remanded to the file of PCIT for a

ITA 457/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year:2015-16 Isha Agrawal, Pcit-1, 1, Aurangpura, Indore बनाम/ Khargone Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Agfpa1915P Assessee By Shri Anil Garg & Shri Ayush Garg, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2025

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 44A

interest payment: 5. In this regard, Ld. AR for assessee made following submissions: (i) That, the assessee has already filed appeal before CIT(A) challenging the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made by AO on account of principal amount of loan. Since the interest ... against the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made by AO on account of principal amount of bogus loan is pending in first-appeal before CIT(A) and therefore the PCIT did not have jurisdiction to undertake revision u/s 263. In this regard, when we read the provision of Explanation

Omprakash Jaiswal, Indore vs. ACIT-1(1), Indore

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 443/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 68

addition of Rs. 11,80,510/- u/s 68 on account of unexplained capital introduction. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first appeal before CIT(A). 3. During first-appeal, the assessee made a detailed submission which is re-produced by CIT(A) in Para 4 of impugned order. However ... Balance-Sheet and passed credit entry in Capital A/c which is an accommodation entry. Accordingly, the AO rejected assessee’s submission. During first-appeal, the CIT(A) upheld AO’s order without any independent adjudication. 15. Before us, the assessee has filed additional evidences in the form

S Gandhi Jewellery Private Limited, Indore vs. PCIT-1, Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 311/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18 S. Gandhi Jewellery Pcit-1, Private Limited, Indore C/O Adv. Hitesh Chimnani, बनाम/ Ug-37 Trade Centre, Vs. 18, South Tukoganj, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aamcs1613G Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

case and in law, the Hon'ble PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 on the same issue, which was subject matter of appeal before CIT Appeals. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble PCIT without properly appreciating ... income assessed as high as 12.50% from alleged bogus purchase of Rs. 1,55,00,000/-, therefore the assessee has gone into first- appeal before CIT(A) even against the order of re-assessment passed by AO. Thus, the very same issue i.e. bogus purchase

Amish Purshottamdas Patel, Petlad vs. ITO Petlad, Petlad

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

ITA 578/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)

Land - Rs.55,48,300/-. ii. Undisclosed Sale of Property - Rs.5,59,565/- as Short-Term Capital Gain (STCG). 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) but did not file any written submissions or attend the hearings despite multiple notices. CIT(A) upheld the AO’s findings but granted

Rajrath Merchants Pvt Ltd, Kankurgachi vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Hazaribagh

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 192/RAN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 264

enclosed herewith for your kind perusal. Hence, the appeal should have been decided on merits by Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the first appeal before CIT(A) being dismissed as infructuous on wrong facts is clearly a mistake apparent from record. Therefore, it is requested to your honour to kindly

Baijnath Goel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 1339/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1339/Srt/2024 (Ay 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Baijnath Goel Income Tax Officer, Ward- 701, Prayag Residency, Parle Point, 1(2)(1), Surat, Room # 116, बनाम B/H Sargam Shopping Centre, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Vs Surat-395 007 Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil [Pan : Afipg 6263 N] Hospital, Surat-395 001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 115BSection 144Section 254(1)

considering the contention of Ld. AR of the assessee and the fact that there was delay of only 41 days in filing appeal before CIT(A). Moreover, the copy of assessment order was not served upon the assessee. Assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act, therefore, considering

Rameshwar Thakur, Dalli Rajhara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Bhilai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 21/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.21/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rameshwar Thakur Bharitola, Chipara, Dalli Rajhara (C.G.)-491 228 Pan : Adzpt6030H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Akansha Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

case and in law, the Id. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in condoning the delay in filing of appeal before CIT(A). 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A), NFAC erred in sustaining the addition

Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2017/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora, H G Sharma

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 initiated separately for concealment of income." 5. The assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A) on 11.02.2020. In the meantime, the Ld. PCIT examined the records and noted that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous

Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune

ITA 1178/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148