← 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)

Shyam Chelaramji Rangwani, Kheda vs. The ITO, Ward-5, Nadiad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 1947/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1947/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shyam Chelaramji Rangwani The Ito 2, Vasant Vihar, बनाम / Ward-5 Nr. Zalak Hotel V/S. Nadiad - 387 002 (Gujarat) Petlad Road, Nadiad, Kheda – 387 002 (Gujarat) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aivpr 8944 Η प्रत्यर्थी/ (Respondent) अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) Assessee By: Shri Manish J. Shah & Shyri Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 18/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 14-10-2024, Which Upheld The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] By The Assessing Officer, Ward-5, Nadiad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao"], For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13.

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 69A

unexplained investment and completed the assessment ex-parte under Section 144 r.w.s.147 of the Act on 12.12.2019. 4. The assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A), Vadodara, raising the grounds that the notice under Section 148 was not validly served, as it was issued under wrong PAN (ABQPR2834L

The DCIT (Int.Taxa.), Vadodara vs. Shri Ajoy Kanaiyalal Khandheria, Vadodara

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

ITA 451/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.451/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 3337, Nr. Palaiya Mahakali Ward-3 V/S. Mandir Gandhinagar Pethapur, Gandhinagar Gandhinagar – 382 610 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afepv 3269 D (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 19/01/2024, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Which Upheld The Order Of The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] Dated 30/12/2019, Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"]. Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR
Section 10(37)Section 144Section 147Section 148

income filed after the issuance of notice under Section 148 as non-compliant due to delayed filing. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) who passed an order dismissing the appeal. The CIT(A) observed that the reopening under Section 148 was valid as the Assessing Officer

Jignesh Shah, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Bhavnagar

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

ITA 1837/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1837/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Jignesh Shah, D-604, Indraprastha Apartment Near Maheshwari Bhawan City Light Road, Surat - 395 007 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Agyps 8575 Q (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Assessee By : Revenue By : Shrti Mehul Shah, Ar Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: The Asst.Cit बनाम Circle-1 / V/S. Bhavnagar (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) : 30/01/2025 : 06/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 23/08/2024, Confirming The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao"] Under Sections 69A & 69C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961[Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] For The Assessment Year 2022-23.

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shrti Mehul Shah, AR
Section 271ASection 69ASection 69C

assessee's non-compliance and failure to discharge the burden of proof, the AO concluded the assessment accordingly. 3. The assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal ex-parte, citing non-compliance by the assessee and failure to provide supporting documentary evidence despite multiple opportunities. The assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. H V Infratex Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1034/AHD/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Feb 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1034/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assistant Cit H.V. Infratex Ltd. बनाम/ Circle-2(1)(1) 202, Parth Milan Complex V/S. Ahmedabad Nr. Hotel Nest,Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 009 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabch 6794 C (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prakash D. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30 /01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Dated 30.10.2023, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 10/12/2018 Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Asstt. Cit Vs. H.V. Infratex Ltd. Asst. Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Prakash D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 144Section 250(4)Section 37Section 46A

Rs.23,70,14,534/-, on the ground that the assessee failed to substantiate its claim with supporting documents. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) challenging the ad-hoc disallowance. The assessee submitted additional evidence under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962, justifying its expenses with ledgers