← 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)

Centenary Baptist Church, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) 1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 117/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr.AR
Section 140Section 147Section 253

proceedings not uploaded. 5. (EF) petition and / or affidavit for condoning the delay in filing appeal is not uploaded. 6. (EF) Grounds of appeal before CIT(A) not uploaded. 7. (EF) Statement of Facts before CIT(A) not uploaded. 8. Uploaded Form 36 is not matching with e-filing Acknowledgment

ACIT Central-2, Bhopal vs. M/S Balaji Farms and Reality, Bhopal

Appeal is allowed and assessee’s cross-

ITA 166/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central)-2, M/S.Balaji Farms & बनाम/ Bhopal Reality, Vs. 158,3Rd Floor, Zone-Ii, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal (Pan:Aalfb9630L) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 50C

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and simultaneously, vide show-cause notice dated 09.03.2015, initiated penalty proceeding. Against assessment-order, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) but, however, the CIT(A) passed ex-parte order dated 30.03.2017 dismissing assessee’s appeal. It is learnt that the assessee did not file

Star Plastics, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennaui

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

ITA 707/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms.N.V. Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

undisclosed interest of Rs.5,88,071/- and disallowance of expenses on estimate basis at Rs.7,38,090/-. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) and before CIT(A) also, assessee challenged reopening but CIT(A) noted that the AO has followed due procedure prescribed under the law to reopen

Jatin Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3885/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3885/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2009-10) Jatin Enterprises, 31, Savita Sadan, 1St Parsiwada, V.P.Road, C.P.Tank, Mumbai – 400 004. Pan: Aaafj-4667-N ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Acit-19(2),Mumbai, Matru Mandir, Income Tax Office,Tardeo, Mumbai – 400 007. ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Bhende "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr.A.R सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 20/03/2024 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/03/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 01/09/2023, For The Assessment Year 2009-10, Confirming Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961[ In Short ‘The Act’].

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh BhendeFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr.A.R
Section 2Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 3

respect of the addition confirmed by the CIT(A). Against the order levying penalty, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) without appreciating the facts and legal position confirmed the penalty. 2.1 The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer had made addition

Eye Bank Coordination and Research Centre, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exem Ward 1(2), Mumbai

ITA 3660/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

justice without considering the material on record. Therefore, we set aside the order dated 21/08/2023, passed by the CIT(A) and restore the appeal before CIT(A) to its original number with the directions to CIT(A) to decide the appeal after taking into consideration the additional evidence filed

M/S. Sivasakthi Tyres, Tuticorin vs. ITO, Ward-4, Tuticorin

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

ITA 586/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 586/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Sivasakthi Tyres, The Income Tax Officer, 184/9B, Vvd Road, Vs. Ward -4, Tuticorin – 628 008. Tuticorin. Pan: Abkfs 7778L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri V.J. Arul Raj & Shri P. Sivagaminathan, Advocates ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1050727795(1) Dated 14.03.2023. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Tuticorin For The Assessment Year 2014-15 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 08.11.2019. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Making Disallowance Of Payments Made By Way Of Cash For Purchase In Excess Of Rs.20,000/- & Thereby Violating The Provisions Of Section 40A(3) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised 17 Grounds, Which Are Argumentation, Factual & Citation Of Various Case Laws & Hence, Need Not Be Reproduced.

For Appellant: Shri V.J. Arul Raj &For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

assessee’s case falls under exemptions as provided under Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter the ‘Rules’). Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO by observing as under:- “Before me, the appellant has stated that

East Coast Constructions & Industries Ltd., Chennai vs. Dc/ACIT Central Circle- 1(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 236/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 139(5)Section 139(9)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 40Section 43B

Total income / Loss as per order : Rs.20,09,57,255/- 143(1) Total income / Loss assessed : Rs.20,09,57,255/- Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 5. Before CIT(A), the assessee challenged the following items:- i. Amount disallowed under Sec.43B Rs.91,38,44,618 ii. Amount disallowed u/s.40

East Coast Consturctions & Industries Ltd., Chennai vs. Dc/ACIT Cnetral Cricle- 1(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 235/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 139(5)Section 139(9)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 40Section 43B

Total income / Loss as per order : Rs.20,09,57,255/- 143(1) Total income / Loss assessed : Rs.20,09,57,255/- Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 5. Before CIT(A), the assessee challenged the following items:- i. Amount disallowed under Sec.43B Rs.91,38,44,618 ii. Amount disallowed u/s.40

Seema Sinha, Indore vs. ITO-4(4), Bhopal

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

ITA 499/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Indore18 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Seema Sinha Ito-3(4) C-508, Shehnai Residency Bhopal Vs. A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Alups4142A Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari , Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.03.2024

Section 147Section 148

barred by limitation. He has further submitted that the CIT(A) has declined to condone delay of 162 days in filing the appeal before CIT(A). He has referred to form 35 and submitted that the assessee has explained the reasons for delay in from 35 itself which were

Kamal Panjwani, Indore vs. The ACIT 3 (1), Indore

ITA 85/IND/2014[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Mar 2024AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254

AYs.1988-89 to 1992-93 the AO passed assessment-orders u/s 147/144 on 04.07.1997 after making certain additions. Aggrieved, the assessee went in first-appeal before CIT(A) whereupon the CIT(A), vide order dated 31.12.1997, set aside the assessment-orders for making de novo assessments after hearing assessee ... /250 vide orders dated 27.03.2000 again after making certain additions. Aggrieved by such de novo orders, the assessee filed first-appeal to CIT(A). The CIT(A) decided appeals vide order dated 15.02.2007 granting part-relief to assessee. Dissatisfied with orders of CIT(A), the assessee and revenue both filed

Kamal Panjwani, Indore vs. The ACIT 3 (1), Indore

ITA 84/IND/2014[1991-97]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Mar 2024AY 1991-97

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254

AYs.1988-89 to 1992-93 the AO passed assessment-orders u/s 147/144 on 04.07.1997 after making certain additions. Aggrieved, the assessee went in first-appeal before CIT(A) whereupon the CIT(A), vide order dated 31.12.1997, set aside the assessment-orders for making de novo assessments after hearing assessee ... /250 vide orders dated 27.03.2000 again after making certain additions. Aggrieved by such de novo orders, the assessee filed first-appeal to CIT(A). The CIT(A) decided appeals vide order dated 15.02.2007 granting part-relief to assessee. Dissatisfied with orders of CIT(A), the assessee and revenue both filed

Kamal Panjwani, Indore vs. The ACIT 3 (1), Indore

ITA 83/IND/2014[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Mar 2024AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254

AYs.1988-89 to 1992-93 the AO passed assessment-orders u/s 147/144 on 04.07.1997 after making certain additions. Aggrieved, the assessee went in first-appeal before CIT(A) whereupon the CIT(A), vide order dated 31.12.1997, set aside the assessment-orders for making de novo assessments after hearing assessee ... /250 vide orders dated 27.03.2000 again after making certain additions. Aggrieved by such de novo orders, the assessee filed first-appeal to CIT(A). The CIT(A) decided appeals vide order dated 15.02.2007 granting part-relief to assessee. Dissatisfied with orders of CIT(A), the assessee and revenue both filed

Kamal Panjwani, Indore vs. The ACIT 3 (1), Indore

ITA 82/IND/2014[1989-90]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Mar 2024AY 1989-90

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254

AYs.1988-89 to 1992-93 the AO passed assessment-orders u/s 147/144 on 04.07.1997 after making certain additions. Aggrieved, the assessee went in first-appeal before CIT(A) whereupon the CIT(A), vide order dated 31.12.1997, set aside the assessment-orders for making de novo assessments after hearing assessee ... /250 vide orders dated 27.03.2000 again after making certain additions. Aggrieved by such de novo orders, the assessee filed first-appeal to CIT(A). The CIT(A) decided appeals vide order dated 15.02.2007 granting part-relief to assessee. Dissatisfied with orders of CIT(A), the assessee and revenue both filed

Kamal Panjwani, Indore vs. The ACIT 3 (1), Indore

ITA 81/IND/2014[1988-89]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Mar 2024AY 1988-89

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254

AYs.1988-89 to 1992-93 the AO passed assessment-orders u/s 147/144 on 04.07.1997 after making certain additions. Aggrieved, the assessee went in first-appeal before CIT(A) whereupon the CIT(A), vide order dated 31.12.1997, set aside the assessment-orders for making de novo assessments after hearing assessee ... /250 vide orders dated 27.03.2000 again after making certain additions. Aggrieved by such de novo orders, the assessee filed first-appeal to CIT(A). The CIT(A) decided appeals vide order dated 15.02.2007 granting part-relief to assessee. Dissatisfied with orders of CIT(A), the assessee and revenue both filed

T P Ostwal & Associates LLP, Mumbai vs. ACIT-16(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, addition of INR 67,58,815/- made by the Assessing Officer is deleted. Accordingly, Ground No. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 are allowed while Ground No

ITA 3746/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Atul T. SuraiyaFor Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 40

addition of INR 67,58,815/- was made in respect of remuneration paid to the partner. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A) which 4. was dismissed as being barred by limitation vide order, dated 14/09/2023. The Appellant is now in appeal before us against the above order ... perusal of the same, we do not find any query raised by the CIT(A) in relation to delay in filing the appeal. The CIT(A) decided the appeal moving on the premise that Appellant had time till 03/02/2018 to file the appeal without taking into consideration the fact that

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2, Nagpur vs. M/S Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 404/NAG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

under 80IA by Rs.1,56,00,000/- and consequently added Rs.1,56,00,000/- to the total income of the Assessee. 6] In Appeal before CIT(A) it was contended that once the power plant is established nothing is required to be done by the Directors. Power Plant is looked

Sh. Gurpreet Singh, Mohali vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Mohali

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

ITA 476/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

were uploaded on the portal, but inadvertently, the application for condonation of delay in ITA 476/CHD/2023 A.Y.2011-12 Page 4 of 5 filing the appeal before CIT(A) was not uploaded, although it was mentioned in Form No.35. We have found that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

Thalapakatty Hotels Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 331/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Ms.N.V. Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69

Rs.4,49,09,000/- as unexplained cash deposit u/s.69 of the Act and brought to tax u/s.115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and going through the details, summary of SBNs and non-SBNs deposited

Rrp Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward-5(3), Chennai

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

ITA 714/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Ms.N.V. Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Balakrishnan, CIT
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153C

same was treated as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act and added to the returned income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 5. The CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO by observing in para 7.2 as under:- “7.2 From the above, it is seen that

Manohar Prasad Akkineni, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai

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

ITA 1216/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 36

also written off which has no relevance to the business of assessee. Hence, he disallowed the claim of assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The assessee before CIT(A) claimed that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings called for information and assessee has filed a detailed