“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)

Aastha Creations, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 20(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2175/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleaastha Creations V. Income Tax Officer – 20(1)(1) Unit No. 102, M-Block Room No. 124, 1St Floor Ranjit Studio Compound Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Dadasaheb Phalke Road Parel - 400012 Dadar (E), Mumbai - 400014 Pan: Aamfa1927A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 253(5)Section 44ASection 69C

disallowed u/s 69C 4) On receipt of assessment order the assessee firm being aggrieved with addition made went in appeal and filed First Appeal before CIT(A)-32, Mumbai. This appeal filed was disposed of dismissing the appeal vide Appellate order dated 20.02.2023 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals

Silver Sand Coop Housing Soc Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1425/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blebuilding No. 12, Silver Sands Chs Ltd., Bangalore Post Bag No. 2 S.V. Road, Piramal Nagar Electronic City, Post Office Goregaon (W), Mumbai - 400062 Bangalore - 560100 Pan: Aadas5600G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 245Section 80P

immediately handed over to their chartered accountant M/s. KVS & Company. However, the chartered accountant did not file any rectification application nor file any appeal before CIT(A). 3. I, say that I was not aware of the CIT(A) proceedings at all. I became aware of the non-filing ... appeal before CIT(A) when society received an Intimation u/s 245 of the act by email on 30/03/2021 for a proposal to adjustment of refund for A.Y 2020-21 against outstanding demand for AY 2018-19. That time I came to know about the fact that the demand raised under

Shalini Karan Kumaqr, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-6(1), Mumbai

ITA 1154/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande

Section 143(3)

disallowance of interest expenses of INR 1,50,000/- and INR 25,13,398/-. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A) 4. against the addition /disallowance, the CIT(A) vide order dated 07/02/2022, dismissing the appeal preferred by the Appellant. Being aggrieved, the Appellant is in appeal before

Rakesh Mafatlal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2107/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blerakesh Mafatlal Jain V. Income Tax Officer – 19(3)(1) C/O. M.A. Enterprises Mumbai A/4, Madhavji Building 260, S.V.P Road Opp. Alankar Cinema Mumbai – 400004 Pan: Agcpj5330L (Appellant) (Respondent)

assessment proceedings for A.Y 2010-11. 4. That in A.Y 2010-11 the AO made additions towards bogus purchases and I preferred an appeal before CIT(A) against the assessment order. 5. That when appeal was listed for hearing, my CA appeared and made the necessary compliances and submissions

Vapi Green Enviro Limited, Vapi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

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

ITA 387/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Vapi Green Enviro Limited, Pr.C.I.T., Valsad. 135, 1St Floor, Via House, G.I.D.C. 301, 3Rd Floor, Palak Vs. Char Rasta, Vapi, Gujarat, Arcade, Shanti Nagar, India-396195. Tithal Road, Pan: Aaacv 8289 P Valsad-396001. Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 254(1)Section 263

order u/s.263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 31.03.2023 without considering the fact that the said assessment order has been subject matter of appeal before CIT(A), Vapi Green Enviro Ltd. Vs Pr.CIT which has already been decided in favour of the Appellant by order dated 20.01.2023, and therefore, matters ... considered by assessee relating to mutual activities and not covered by definition of income. The assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) against such adjustment of income relating to mutual activities and such adjustment was deleted. The assessee further stated that in the meantime, the case was selected for scrutiny

ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Zensar Technologies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed while the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3492/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 3Section 94(7)

addition of INR 10,12,26,268/- made by the Assessing Officer, was levied by the Assessing Officer. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) 4. against the levy of above penalty. Vide order, dated 16/02/2010, the CIT(A) granted substantial relief and restricted the levy of penalty

Sbm Chemicals & Instruments Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 8(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 534/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 45Section 54E

context of the statutory provisions which were applicable for prior periods. The CIT(A) dismissed Ground No. 1 raised by the Appellant in appeal before CIT(A) vide order, dated 20/11/2017. Being aggrieved, the Appellant is now in appeal before us on this 6. issue. The Appellant had initially raised

Suresh Kumar Gupta, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur

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

ITA 238/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 237 & 238/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Suresh Kumar Gupta Prop. M/S. Mittal Roadways, A-10, G.E Road, Tatibandh Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Adcpg8248B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prafulla Pendse, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

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

under section 40(a)(ia) of Rs.7,45,475/- on account of non-deduction of tax at source. 2. The appellant filed an appeal before CIT(A) on 01.10.2016 which was disposed off by him by sustaining the entire additions / 6 Suresh Kumar Gupta Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur

Suresh Kumar Gupta, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur

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

ITA 237/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Prafulla Pendse, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

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

M/S. Blue Square Corporate Services Pvt Lte, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-12(1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 2052/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 68

made under Section 68 of the Act in the hands of the Appellant. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A) 4. against the order dated, 28/12/2016, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act which was dismissed by the CIT(A) vide order, dated

ACIT, Circle- 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bbh Communications India Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 2000/MUM/2023[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2023

For Appellant: Ms. Tejal SarafFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 143(3)

Assessing Officer and the receipts reflected in Form 26AS. Being aggrieved by above additions made by the Assessing Officer, 4. the Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) deleted the 3 additions and allowed the appeal of the Assessee vide order, dated 01/04/2023 holding as under

The ACIT Central, Bhopal vs. M/S. Bansal Construction Workswork, Bhopal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 182/IND/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit/Dcit, M/S.Bansal Construction Central-1, Works, बनाम/ Bhopal E-5, Tawa Complex, 3Rd Floor, Bittan Market, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aaafb8527B

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

Constructions Works (I.T.A.No. 182/Ind/2022 & C.O.No.02/Ind/2023) AY 2010-11) Aggrieved by order of re-assessment dated 23.12.2016, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A). During first-appeal, the assessee not only contested the merits of disallowance but also raised a legal ground of challenging the very proceeding ... above facts & discussion, interest amounting to Rs. 50,46,000/- is disallowed & added to the total income of the assessee.” 8. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) passed following order: “4.1.4 In the instant case, the Ld. AO has basically invoked provisions of section

Shri Pankajbhai Karamshibhai Savani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(3)(3), Surat

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

ITA 234/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.234/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Hearing) Pankajbhai Karamshibhai Savani, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(3), C-201, Saimilan Residence, Sudama Surat. Chowk, Mota Varachha, Surat - 395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Berps5247H (Assessee) (Respondent) Shri Ashwin K. Parekh, Ca Assessee By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 26/06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11/09/2023

Section 143(3)

directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Surat [in short “the Ld. CIT(A)”], Surat, in Appeal No. CIT(A)-1/11324/2016-17, dated 03.02.2020, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income ... physical notice was served on assessee by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The assessee approached AR, Ashwin Parekh for pending appeal before CIT(A) for A.Y. 2014-15 and A.Y. 2015-16 and on 03.04.2023, the AR verified the status of pending appeal

Alpha Hi-Tech Fuel Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Snr Circle, Surendranagar

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 68/RJT/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Sept 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.68/Rjt/2009 (धििाधरणणवध/ Assessment Year 2005-06) Alpha Hi-Tech Fuel Limited, बिाम/ D.C.I.T, Station Road, Surendranagar Vs. Lakhtar, Dist. Surendranagar, Gujarat-382775 स्ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca4258P (अपीला््/Appellant) (प्य््/ Respondent) अपीला््थरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R Shri B.D Gupta, Sr. D.R. प्य््करथरसे/Respondent By: सुिणाईकरतारीख/ Date Of Hearing 08/06/2023 घोवणाकरतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 05/09/2023 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R

Section 40Section 80Section 80I

ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of Assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [Ld. CIT(A) in short], dated 08/12/2008 arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ... eligible amount the deduction claimed and allowed to the assessee under section 80HHC of the Act. Aggrieved against this action, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) and CIT(A) enhanced the assessment of the assessee by withdrawing the deduction under section 80-IB of the Act allowed to the assessee

Jagdish Manilal Desai, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 462/SRT/2023[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Surat05 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.462/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Virtual Hearing) Jagdish Manilal Desai (Huf), Vs. The Ito, Prop. Hemal Gems, 104, 3Rd Ward – 1(3)(2), Floor, Keshav Jyot Apartment, Surat Lal Bunglow, Athwalines, Surat – 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabhj3074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)

polished diamonds. The ld CIT(A) noted that in that case the AO made disallowance of entire bogus purchase and on first appeal before CIT(A) the disallowances were maintained. However, the Tribunal gave partial relief to the assessee directing to sustain the addition @12% of such bogus purchases

Golden Traders, Amroha vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Amroha

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

ITA 1023/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Gulati, AdvFor Respondent: Shri K. K. Mishra, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 282

progress of their appeal but the AR never informed any pending compliance. The assessee was taken by surprise about the dismissal of appeal before CIT(A) on 17.03.2023 and for non-furnishing of submission by the consultant in support of their grounds of appeal. 3.8 The Ld. counsel, in essence ... before the CIT(A) due to negligence on the part of his AR. 3.9 In the backdrop, the ld. counsel contends that the appeal before CIT(A) was dismissed without the opportunity which has resulted in an incorrect addition against them. 3.10 On merits, the ld. counsel adverted

Rajesh C Dalal-HUF, Surat vs. Addl/Jt/Deputy/Asst CIT/National E- Assessment Center Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 249/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Rajesh C. Dalal-Huf, A.C.I.T., P-260, Old Gidc Estate, National E-Assessment Vs. Katargam, Surat-395004. Centre, Delhi. Pan: Aalhr 4363 J Appellant Respondednt

Section 24Section 254(1)Section 270A(1)Section 274

under section 270A in order dated 02.03.2022. Aggrieved by the order of penalty under section 270A, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The appeal of the assessee was adjudicate by NFAC vide order dated 17.08.2022 and was dismissed by taking view that application for immunity was filed after

Shakuntala Kamble (Legal Representative of Premchand Kamble), Thane vs. DCIT -Cent. Cir `, Thane

ITA 1764/MUM/2021[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Pravin TembhekarFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Selvamani

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 153ASection 253(3)

under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2007-08 and 2008- 09, both, dated 20/03/2013. Appeal Before CIT(A) 2.7. Being aggrieved the Assessee preferred 4 appeals before the CIT(A) against the Assessment Orders passed under Section ... seized from the premises of Mr. 14,04,000 Mukesh Gupta (unexplained payments) 5.4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A), vide common order dated 20/12/2019, partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee. 5.5. Not being satisfied with the relief

Procter & Gamgle Hygiene& Healthcare, Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6591/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Batham

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

Order, dated 27/12/2006 at assessed income of INR 1,26,00,14,174/- after making certain additions/disallowance. 2.3. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) against the Assessment Order which was partly allowed, vide order dated 18/06/2010. 2.4. Since, both, the Assessee as well as the Revenue were ... various units for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 80IB of the Act. 8.2. Being aggrieved, the Assessee carried the issue in appeal before CIT(A). It was contended before the CIT(A) that the Assessee had computed the profits of the undertakings eligible for deduction under Section 801B

Addl CIT RG 7(1), Mumbai vs. Proctor & Gamble Hygiene & Healthcare Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6549/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Batham

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)