“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)

Sky Gem, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

ITA 787/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

during the relevant previous year held by the Assessing Officer to be unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. 13.1. In appeal the CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer by adopting the reasoning given while confirming ITA No.787-790/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year ... Diamond 11,58,34,551 3% 34,75,036 Total 13,56,58,546 44,66,235 14.2. Being aggrieved the Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A). It was contended on behalf of the Appellant that all the information/documents to prove the genuineness of the purchase transaction were filed

DCIT Central Circle 14, New Delhi vs. Rajesh Sharma, New Delhi

ITA 606/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmadcit Vs. M/S. Rajesh Sharma, Central Circle 14 1165, Kucha Mahajani, New Delhi Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 153C(1)

account of unaccounted cash paid to M/s Faith Jewellers for getting accommodation entries. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A). 4. The Ld. CIT(A) vide dated 27.12.2022 allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that assessment made for assessment year

Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, additional grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4220/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Section 14ASection 80(2)(ii)

regards u/r. 8D(2)(iii), the Assessing Officer enhanced the disallowance by Rs.24.55 crores. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance u/r. 8D(2)(iii) to Rs.17,04,69,294/- (including suo-motu disallowance of Rs.1.48 crores). 5.1 The first contention

Dr Arvind Joshi, Bhopal vs. ACIT-CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 372/IND/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12 Dr. Arvind Joshi, Acit – Cpc, A-1/201, Paras City, Bangalore बनाम/ E-3, Arera Colony, Bhopal Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aavpj3024C Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.08.2023

Section 143(1)Section 249(3)

filing first- appeal should have been reckoned from 27.04.2017 and when it is so done, there would be no delay in filing first-appeal before CIT(A). Taking note of this ground raised by assessee, we proposed to Ld. DR to remand this case back to CIT(A) so that

NA vs. Ari Malesar Behdin Anjuman, Navsarivs.Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 336/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.336/Srt/2023 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Navsari Malesar Behdin Income Tax Officer, (Exemption) Ward, Room Anjuman, Agary Street, Vs No.105, 1St Floor, Anavil Malesar, Business Centre, Aayakar Navsari-396445 Bhavan, Adajan Hazira Road, Pan No. Aaatn 6124 C Adajan, Surat-395007 ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

Section 11Section 156Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Anjuman of paper book. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that assessee was contesting all proceedings, either in quantum assessment or in appeal before CIT(A) or Tribunal and assessee also contested penalty proceedings and there was no reason for the assessee, not to file the appeal in time

Tulsidas V. Patel Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 5(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 556/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2023AY 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri Prakash K. JotwaniFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati

Section 143(3)(ii)Section 234B

vide order, dated 5 23/03/2015, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. 3.5. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A) against the Assessment Order. The CIT(A) agreed that the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal vide, order dated 30/11/2016. 3.6. Being aggrieved by the order passed

Atray Commerce Pvt Ltd, Vashi vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

ITA 1651/MUM/2023[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023

Bench: Cit(A) Which Was Also Dismissed.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 70

return was filed after the due date as specified under Section 139(1) of the Act. 2.2. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A) which was also dismissed. 2.3. Therefore, the Appellant preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: 1. The Ld. CIT

Mamta Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 31(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1534/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.1442 /मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं.1534 /मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2016-17) Mamta Mehta, B-3, Bldg No.3, Saibaba Enclave, Behind Citi Centre, Goregaon West Mumbai 400 062. Pan: Afxpm-6021-P ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 31(2)(3), Kautalya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bkc, Bandra(E) Mumbai – 400 051 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Prakash Choughule सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Choughule

Section 10(38)Section 44A

Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 28/12/2018, passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A), but remained unsuccessful, hence, the present appeal. 6. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that a perusal of the assessment order would show that

Mamta Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

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

ITA 1442/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Choughule

Section 10(38)Section 44A

Band Begam, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 247/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 234ASection 69A

Data Base is Smt. Band Begam. The same is evident from the fact that Form 35 (For filing the appeal before CIT(A)) filed on 31-01-2018 is also bearing the name “Band Begam” instead of “Bano Begam”. In this regards, a snap shot of e filing portal

Sv Agri Trade LLP, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-Central Circle 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 2959/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2016-2017

For Appellant: Shri Amar GahlotFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 133ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40

offer and made an addition of INR 3,32,58,600/- on account of undisclosed Sauda Income. 5.3 Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A) and filed additional evidences in the form of ledger confirmations from some of the parties and explained the reason for variation. The CIT ... account of understatement of income relying upon the report of the special auditor. 6.3 The Appellant carried the issue in appeal before CIT(A). It was contended on behalf of the Appellant that the Appellant had requested the Assessing Officer to provide copy of the tally back-up 14 impounded

DDIT (It)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 11 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 884/MUM/2003[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 1993-94

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 15Section 37(2)Section 46Section 58B

161/Mum/2003 (Assessment Year 1993-94) Crores after making various additions and disallowances. 3.1. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) which was disposed off vide order dated 25/11/2002 as partly allowed after granting substantial relief to the Assessee. 3.2. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has preferred the present appeal ... against the disallowance of INR 37,46,791/- as computed by the Assessee. 4.2. Being aggrieved, the Assessee carried the issue in appeal before CIT(A). It was contended on behalf of the Assessee that as per Rule 6D the expenses incurred by employees on local conveyance while on tour

Ram Narayan Contractor, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-62(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 956/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 154Section 184Section 184(5)Section 185

basis of estimated profit at the rate of 8% of Gross Receipts. Aggrieved form the order U/s 143(3), the assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A)- 20 vide order dated 14.03.2018 partly allowed the appeal by reducing the estimated profit rate to 5% of Gross Receipts

Bizznet Online Systems Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-1, Thane

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, subject to the condition aforesaid

ITA 1114/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1112/मुं/2023 ("न.व 2010-11) आअसं. 1114/मुं/2023 ("न.व 2012-13) Bizznet Online Systems Pvt. Ltd. 1St Floor, Gulshan Villa, Oomer Park, Warden Road, Gowalia Tank, Mumbai – 400 026. Pan: Aabcb-2432-R ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Acit Circle -1-Thane , 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Wagle Estate, Thane- 400 604. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Bharat Gandhi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Sunny Kachhwaha सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/07/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/07/2023 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Bharat GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Sunny Kachhwaha

Section 143(3)

assessee handed over relevant documents along with assessment order to the Tax Consultant Shri Hitesh K. Mehta, Chartered Accountant for filing of appeal before CIT(A). The said Chartered Accountant failed to file appeal before CIT(A) on time. By the time it was realized that no appeal has been ... Accountant Shri Hitesh Mehta stating that the delay in filing of appeal was on his account. The total delay in filing of the appeal before CIT(A) was 189 days. The CIT(A) without appreciating the facts dismissed the appeal on account of limitation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court

Bizznet Online Systems Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-1, Thane

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, subject to the condition aforesaid

ITA 1112/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Bharat GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Sunny Kachhwaha

Section 143(3)

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 1438/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Union Bank Of India Deputy Commissioner Of Income Union Bank Bhavan, Tax, Circle- (Ltu)-2, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Vs. 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Nariman Point, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005 Mumbai- 400021 Pan No. Aaacu 0564 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: C NareshFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 234DSection 36(1)(viia)

Assessing officer passed an order consequential to the direction of ITAT dated 12/07/2019. Against that consequential order of AO , the assessee again preferred appeal before CIT(A) , but the CIT(A) vide his order dated 20/03/23 upheld the AO. The appeal preferred against the said order of the CIT

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-(Ltu)-2, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 1437/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: C NareshFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 234DSection 36(1)(viia)

Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd (in Respect of M.S, Icici Ltd Merged With M.S, Icici Bank Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8435/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.8435 /मुं/2010("न.व. 2003-04) The Dy.Commissioner Of Income-Tax ,Cir. 3(1), Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Icici Bank Limited, Icici Bank Towers, Bandra-Kurla-Complex, Bandra(East), Mumbai 400 051. Pan: Aaaci-1195-H .....""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel

Section 10Section 10(15)Section 23Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 80M

aggregating to Rs.769,57,10,766/-. Aggrieved by the addition made in assessment order dated 28/02/2006, the assessee carried the issue in appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) following the order of his predecessor in assessment years 2000-01, 2002-03 and 2004-05 deleted the addition, summarily

Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8420/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2023AY 2003-04

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel

Section 10Section 10(15)Section 23Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 80M

Kuni Samantaray, Cuttack vs. ITO Ward-2(4), Cuttack

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 12/CTK/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

undisclosed fee received. The ld.AR has filed his written submissions as under :- 1. Assessee assessed u/s.144 on dt.22/01l2014. Aggrieved filed appeal before CIT(A). CIT(A) Dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved filed appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT . The Hon'ble ITAT vide ITA No. 144/CTK/20 14 restored the file