← 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)

Lakshman Ram, Nagapattinam vs. ITO, Ward 2 Kumbakaonam, Kumbakonam

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

ITA 1521/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 144

Rs.9,45,456/- as underreported business income. The AO also added the demonetized cash deposit of Rs.27,35,460/-. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) and the CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO for the reason that the assessee has filed only basic particulars ... statement of facts and grounds of appeal before CIT(A) and nothing else. The CIT(A) recorded this fact in para 7.6 as under:- “7.6 Further, even during the course of present appellate proceedings, the assessee has failed to rebut the findings of the AO. The assessee did not file

Kondichetty Venkatasweamy Janarthanam, Chennai vs. ITO, Non-Corporate Ward-4(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1478/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69

money u/s.69 of the Act and taxed the same at the rate of 60% as provided u/s.115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. The assessee before CIT(A) contended that he has cash withdrawal of Rs.23.30 lakhs during the period 01.04.2016 to 08.11.2016 and Rs.3.20

Hallmark Infrastructure Private Iimited, Chennai vs. ITO, Corp. Ward 2(3). Chennai, Chennai

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

ITA 1446/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 1446/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Hallmark Infrastructure Pvt. The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs. Corporate Ward 2(3), 43, United Plaza, Usman Road, Chennai – 34. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Pan: Aabch 5970J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act and taxed under the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A). 4. The ld.counsel stated that the CIT(A)’s order is simpliciter for non-prosecution and the relevant order reads as under:- “The present

Mr.Raja, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-19(7), Chennai

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

ITA 1318/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramesh, FCAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69

entire cash deposits of Rs.40,73,500/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act and taxed u/s.115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. Before CIT(A), assessee contended that cash deposit during demonetization period was only Rs.37,57,000/- and not as added

Muthu Gounder Palanisamy, Salem vs. ITO, Ward 1(7), Salem

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

ITA 1306/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

assessed under Section 69A r.w.s.115BBE of the I.T. Act, for the assessment year 2017-18 of the assessee.” 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) and the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO by observing in para 7.2.1 as under:- “7.2.1 The issue under consideration

Saravanan, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-19(3), Chennai

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

ITA 1297/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1297/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Saravanan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.66, Non-Corporate Ward 19(3), Manali Ramakrishna Avenue, Chennai. Ambal Nagar, Mangadu, Chennai – 600 122. Pan : Brtps 0567F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ar.V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2024

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

cash deposits made during demonetization period as unexplained u/s.69 of the Act and taxed the same u/s.115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition by observing in para 7.11 as under:- 7.11 Having considered entire facts of the case

Mahalinga Textiles, Theni vs. ITO, Ward-1, Theni

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

ITA 1296/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

evidence against the said claim. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) is hereby initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee is unable to submit proof of expenses as AO has to strictly examine the issue

Saravanan Priya, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw 15(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1245/CHNY/2023[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, Addl CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

recorded in the sale deed and value determined by the District Valuation Officer vide his valuation report dated 22.01.2020. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has not considered the basic difference of benefit 4. of 15% valuation on DVO value. The ld. CIT

Rajasthan Medical Services Corporation Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT DCIT Cir -6 Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is dismissed

ITA 479/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

condonation of delay praying therein as under to condone the delay:- 1. The representing CA of the assessee who had filed the appeal before CIT(A) of the case was changed and the new CA who was appointed was not aware of the pending cases or orders of the assesses

Ravindra Gaur, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 6(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 673/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Him. Appellant Prays That Holding The Order Of Id. Ao As Legal & Correct Despite The Fact That The Residential Status Of Appellant Was A Non-Resident Indian (Nri) During The Relevant Financial Year Is Most Unjust & Unwarranted. Therefore, The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Deserves To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

support of his case, which reads as under:- “I Revindra Gaur having PAN AQAPG8790R solemnly declare the following:- 1. That I filed an appeal before CIT(A) against the order passed u/s 144/147 dated 15.03.2023 in may case for the AY 2015- 16 vide acknowledgement number

Smt. Nirmala Venkatapathy, Madurai vs. ITO, Ward - II (1), Madurai

Accordingly, all the grounds taken by the appellant are dismissed

ITA 2492/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2492/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Late Smt. Nirmala The Income Tax Officer, Venkatapathy, Vs. Ward Ii(1), Rep. By Legal Heir, Smt. Uma Madurai. Venkatachalam No.12, Jawahar Road, Chockkikulam, Madurai – 625 002. Pan: Agcpn 9068P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N.Arjun Raj, Ca (Amicus Curie) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Madurai In Ita No.010/2013-14 Dated 08.08.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Ii(1), Madurai For The Assessment Year 2010-11 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 14.03.2013. 2. The First Issue On Merits Is As Regards To Assessment Of Capital Gains.

For Appellant: Shri N.Arjun Raj, CA (Amicus Curie)For Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Rs.1,62,000 600 /100 4. Capital gain 41,94,664 – 1,62,000 Rs.40,32,664 Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO by observing in para 5 as under:- 5. I have considered the assessment order

Fashion Design Council of India, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle (Exemp) 1(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine as infructuous

ITA 2786/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediafashion Design Council Of Vs. Acit India Circle (Exemp) 1(1) 209, Near Modi Flour Mill, New Delhi Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-3, New Delhi-110 020

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 37(1)Section 44A

under section 154 of the Act dated 19.09.2022 confirming the additions made under section 143(1) intimation. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) against the aforesaid order passed under section 154 of the Act. The CIT(A) however, declined any relief. 6. Further, aggrieved, the assessee

P. Krishnamurthy, Villupuram vs. ITO, Ward-2, Villupuram

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

ITA 773/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 249(2)(b)Section 264Section 69

made addition of unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act and also addition of bank interest. The assessee instead of filing of appeal before CIT(A) against this assessment order, preferred revision petition u/s.264 of the Act dated 11.06.2016 and the revision petition was considered by PCIT and dismissed vide order ... dated 28.03.2018 in C.No.9127/2/PCIT/PDY/264/2017-18. 4. Consequent to dismissal of revision petition by PCIT dated 28.03.2018, the assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) in Form No.35 on 05.08.2018 with a delay of almost 2½ years. The assessee before CIT(A) explained the cause of delay and the CIT(A) noted

Marulasidappa Gundagathi Dyamavvanahalli, Davangere vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Davangere

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

ITA 898/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2010-11 Marulasidappa Gundagathi Dyamavvanahalli #2035/148, Nutan Nilaya Ito 12Th Cross, Anjaneya Badavane Ward-1 Vs. Davanagere 577 005 Davangere Karnataka Pan No.Agepd9313P Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Aparithivel, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Dated 29.9.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1: The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri AParithivel, D.R
Section 142Section 234Section 250Section 68

creditors for Vehicle maintenance not proved :Rs.4,76,430/- Total Income assessed R/o :Rs.3,47,32,950/-“ 2.2 Against this assessee carried the appeal before CIT(A)/NFAC. Before NFAC, no reply has been filed. Accordingly, the NFAC observed that ld. AO has passed speaking order with detailed discussion

Avishi Projects LLP, Kolkata vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore.

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

ITA 1249/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 5

hereby submit that - that against the intimation u/s 143(1) for A.Y 2019-20 the Partnership had filed an appeal before CIT(A) on 27.6.2020 and such appeal so filed later migrated to CIT(A), NFAC vide Notification No 76/2020 dt. 25.9.2020 [F.No.370142/33/2020 -TPL/503296(E)]. 3. That the Learned

Csv Investments Private Limited, Teynampet Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward 1(3), Chennai

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

ITA 499/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 40

intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act, disallowed this salary of Rs.22.32 lakhs paid to its Directors without deduction of TDS. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). But the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal on the ground, by holding that the CIT(A) has no authority under notification

Manish Kumudchandra Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 19(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 2679/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Ms. Mrugakshi JoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Appellant had failed to discharge the onus cast upon the Appellant under Section 68 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A) 3. against the Assessment Order, dated 13/12/2016 challenging, both, the validity of the reassessment proceedings as well as the addition

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Tamil Nadu (Chennai)

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

ITA 968/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 147Section 37Section 40

Accordingly, the AO has disallowed VAT expenses claimed at Rs.12,906 crores u/s.40(a)(iib) of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) following the Tribunal’s decision in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2014-15 deleted the disallowance by holding

Glory Shipmanagement Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC Delhi, Delhi

Accordingly, Ground no 2 is dismissed

ITA 3149/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3149/MUM/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Glory Shipmanagement Private Limited, 504, Abhay Steel House, 22 Baroda Street, Masjid (East), Mumbai - 400009 [PAN: AACCG2684H] ...... Appellant Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Centralized Processing Centre, Delhi Vs .......... .... Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : None For the Responden

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 50CSection 55ASection 56(2)(x)

make an addition of INR 3,86,000/- in the hands of the Appellant. 5. In appeal before CIT(A), it was contended on behalf of the Appellant that the difference of INR 3,86,000/- though more than 5% of purchase consideration was below 10% of the purchase

Mangal Keshav Securities Limited, Andheri (West) vs. The DCIT - 2(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2692/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Jigar MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

total income. Penalty proceedings are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income.” 3 Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A) 5. against the order dated, 30/03/2016, passed under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Act challenging the initiation of reassessment