“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)

ACIT, Coimbatore vs. Shri A.Senthilkumar, Coimbatore

ITA 1452/CHNY/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

ld.counsel for the assessee in his petition dated 15.07.2019 stated that the above jurisdictional issue was raised by assessees in all these appeals before CIT(A) and the CIT(A) in all these years has recorded the ground in the respective appellate orders passed by him. For this, the ld.counsel ... adjusted (AY 02-03) 787303 Less: Loss assessed 381480 Rs.405823/- Rs.1369553/- Add: Additions as discussed Rs.68256542 Rs. 1009700 Rs.69256542 Rs.70635795/- Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 13 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others 9.1 Before CIT(A), assessee raised the jurisdictional issue as noted

ACIT, Coimbatore vs. Shri A.Senthilkumar, Coimbatore

ITA 1451/CHNY/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

ACIT, Coimbatore vs. Shri A.Senthilkumar, Coimbatore

ITA 1450/CHNY/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

ACIT, Coimbatore vs. Shri A.Senthilkumar, Coimbatore

ITA 1449/CHNY/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

M/S. Alchymars Icm Sm Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Range-I, Chennai

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

ITA 862/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 43A

loss claimed on the ground that the amounts were utilized for acquisition of assets and hence, capital in nature. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee noted that gain on fluctuations on account of foreign currency loan taken to acquire

Super Sales India Ltd., Coimbatore vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 2093/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 43A

order, the claim of depreciation of Rs.2,19,94,875/- is hereby withdrawn and added back to the total income.” Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of AO. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before Tribunal. 4. Before us, the ld.counsel

Parthiban Kalavathi, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 11, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1131/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1131/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Parthiban Kalavathi, The Asst. Commissioner Of 74, Pidariar Koil Street, Vs. Income Tax, George Town, Non Corporate Circle-11, Chennai – 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Cxrpk-1062-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2022 : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai, In Ita

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 54F

adventure in nature of trade. The A.O also disallowed the claim of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 6. The CIT(A) confirmed the action of the A.O by observing as under: “In view of the above discussion, facts of circumstances

M/S Well Wisher Construction Pvt Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Ward 18 (1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 7605/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Khushiram JadhwaniFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Mohite, Sr.D.R

26AS statement. 5 I.T.A. No.7605 & 7606/Mum/2019 6. The assessee did not get any relief on the disputed amounts noted above, in the first appeal before CIT(A). 7. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the orders

DCIT, CC-1(1), Chennai vs. M/S. Aban Investments Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 830/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 14A

same as income from other sources and disallowed business loss claimed by assessee amounting to Rs.1,68,55,901/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 3.1 The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of business loss by observing in para 7.1 to 7.3 by following assessee’s own case

M/S Macmillan Publishers India Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Circle 4 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 2784/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2784/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Macmillan Publishers India The Acit, Pvt. Ltd., V. Corporate Circle 4(1), No.21, Patullos Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. Pan: Aafcm 5564R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Chennai In Ita No.69/18- 19 Dated 16.07.2019. The Re-Assessment Was Framed By The Acit, Company Circle 4(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2011-12 U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 30.12.2018. I.T.A. No.2784/Chny/2019 2 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of Ao In Reopening Of Assessment U/S.147 R.W.S 148 Of The Act Even Though There Is No Failure On The Part Of The Assessee To Disclose Fully & Truly The Material Fact Necessary For Its Assessment For The Relevant Assessment Year & The Original Assessment Was Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act. For This, Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds Regarding Reopening Which Are Exhaustive & Argumentative, Hence Need Not To Be Reproduced.

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

issued. Accordingly, reassessment was completed vide order dated 30.12.2018 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 3.1 The CIT(A), despite the fact that ground was raised by assessee that reopening of assessment in view of proviso to section

Amrshi M. Nishar, Mumbai vs. DCIT OSD-II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 3263/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Girish DaveFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 1Section 132(1)Section 133Section 133ASection 153CSection 69

galas/units of the Hi-Speed Project taxable in the hands of the Appellant. 6. Being aggrieved, the Appellant challenged the aforesaid addition in appeal before CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings vide letter dated 07.03.2011, the Appellant raised additional ground challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer

E.Murugan, Kanchipuram vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 22(30, Tambaram

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

ITA 2206/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2206/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 E. Murugan, The Income Tax Officer, No.3/91, Padavattamman Vs. Non Corporate Ward-22(3), Koil Street, Padur Post, Tambaram. Omr Road, Kazhipattur, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Cixpm-8913-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 194LSection 54F

compulsory acquisition of land and building is treated as long term capital gains in the hands of the assessee.” Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 5. Before CIT(A) the first issue raised was that the land compulsorily acquired by State Government was held by his brother

H.M.Pandey, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 19(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2483/CHNY/2017[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2022AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 148

course of assessment proceedings, I have added the entire proceedings from the two TV companies as income from other sources.” Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO in making addition on the basis that although the Hon’ble High

M/S Jaico Automobile Engineering Company Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 125/BANG/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

Section 271(1)(c)

filing this appeal before this Tribunal. However, we noticed from the order of CIT(A) that there was a delay in filing appeal before CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has not admitted the appeal and dismissed in limine and he has not assigned any reasons why the delay

M/S. the Bombay Presidency Radio Club Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ADIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the present appeal filed by the Appellant/Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2055/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Cit(A) Stood Extended By The Provisions Of Taxation & Other Laws (Relaxation & Amendment Of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 & By The Various Orders Passed By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court. Therefore, He Submitted That The Appeal Be Restored To The File Of Cit(A) For Adjudication On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Hari S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

Section 143(1)

delay in Assessment Year: 2018-19 filing the appeal without appreciating that on account of Covid-19 Pandemic the time limit for filing appeal before CIT(A) stood extended by the provisions of Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 and by the various orders ... Circular No. 10 of 2021, dated 25.05.2021 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) the limitation for filing appeal before CIT(A) was relaxed by the CBDT and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the taxpayer was entitled to relaxation more beneficial to him. The aforesaid Circular

Scorditte Stainless India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 5(3) (1), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 1 to 3 raised by the Appellant are allowed

ITA 2002/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

evaded on the concealed income of INR 12,88,648/- (12.5% of INR 9,03,09,184/-). Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A) which was dismissed. Now the Appellant is in appeal before us. 6. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the Appellant submitted the issue

DCIT -CC-5(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Usv Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, respectfully following the above decisions of the Tribunal we refrain to interfere with the order passed by the CIT(A) on this issue. Ground No. 8 raised by the Revenue is, therefore, ...

ITA 2575/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla and Shri Pratik PodarFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 35Section 40

Total 34,05,83,000 Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16 6. Being aggrieved, the Assessee carried the issue in appeal before CIT(A). Vide order, dated 29.01.2021, the CIT(A) allowed weighted deduction at the rate of 200% under Section 35(2AB) of the Act for Clinical Trial Expenses ... Revenue are directed against the order of CIT(A) allowing the claim of the Assessee, raised by way of additional ground in appeal before CIT(A), for deduction of R&D Expenses on ‗gross basis‘ without netting off the income from sale of R&D products and assets. We note

DCIT Circle 8(2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Piramal Glass Ltd (Earlier Known As Gujarat Glass Ltd), Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1451/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 263

assessment was framed on the Assessee under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). During the pendency of the appeal before CIT(A), the Tribunal vide order, dated 14.12.2018 passed in ITA No. 3194/Mum/2016 set aside the order

Vimala Devi A. Kanunga, Hubli vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 308/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18 Ms. Vimala Devi A. Kanunga, Pcit, Vs. M/S. Jainam Syndicate, Hubli. Near Shankar Math, Kanchagargalli, Hubli – 580 028. Pan : Amupk 3079 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 68

letter dated 14.03.2022 submitted that in respect of the addition made by the AO in the Order of Assessment, the assessee prepared appeal before CIT(A). Pending disposal of the said appeal, the assessee opted to settle the dispute under Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas Act, 2020 (VSV Scheme

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Sri Basaveshwar Veerashaiva Vidyavardhak Sangha, Bagalkote

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 66/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

this appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - XI, Bangalore seeking redressal of its grievances. 4.17 Aggrieved the assessee went in appeal before CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) given a certain relief. Against this revenue is in appeal before us. D.R’s submissions