← 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)

Federal-Mogul Goetze India Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Delhi

ITA 4407/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shrivikas Awasthy & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5422/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2021-22 Express Freight Consortium, C-4, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi. बनाम Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Dept, Civic Centre,Pratyakshar Bhawan, Shayama Prasad Mukherjee Marg, New Delhi. Pan No.Aaaae8440R अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Prashant Meharchandani, Advocate & Ms. Kanika Jain, Advocate Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5407/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2021-22 India Seah Precision Metal Prvate Limited, A-39, Sector-80, Phase-Ii, Noida,Uttarpradesh. Pan No.Aabch2680P बनाम Vs. Dcit, Circle 10(1), C.R. Building, New Delhi. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate, Shri Utkarsa Kumar Gupta, Advocate & Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocate Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5376/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2021-22 Oriental Consultants India Private Limited, 10A-16, Ground Floor, Narain Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan No.Aabco8528P बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 19(1), Range-44, C.R. Building, Delhi. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Kashish Gupta, Ar, Ms. Taranjeet Kaur, Ar & Shri Anil Kumar, Advocate 1

ITA Nos. 5422/D/24, 5407/24, 5376/D/24, 5342/D/24, 5371/D/24, 5340/D/24, 4407/D/24, 4337/D/24, 3907/D/24 89862/D/19 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH

Boeing India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Circle-4(2), New Delhi

ITA 4337/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shrivikas Awasthy & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5422/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2021-22 Express Freight Consortium, C-4, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi. बनाम Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Dept, Civic Centre,Pratyakshar Bhawan, Shayama Prasad Mukherjee Marg, New Delhi. Pan No.Aaaae8440R अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Prashant Meharchandani, Advocate & Ms. Kanika Jain, Advocate Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5407/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2021-22 India Seah Precision Metal Prvate Limited, A-39, Sector-80, Phase-Ii, Noida,Uttarpradesh. Pan No.Aabch2680P बनाम Vs. Dcit, Circle 10(1), C.R. Building, New Delhi. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate, Shri Utkarsa Kumar Gupta, Advocate & Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocate Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5376/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2021-22 Oriental Consultants India Private Limited, 10A-16, Ground Floor, Narain Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan No.Aabco8528P बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 19(1), Range-44, C.R. Building, Delhi. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Kashish Gupta, Ar, Ms. Taranjeet Kaur, Ar & Shri Anil Kumar, Advocate 1

objections are filed, the statutory mechanism consumes time by design. Still it remains expeditious way of finalization of dispute as stage of appeal before CIT(A) is done away with if option to file objection before DRP is chosen by the Assessee. Further, demand crystallizes only after DRP direction

Capgemini Technology Services India Limited (Successor to Liquidhub India Private Limited), Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2753/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2753/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Capgemini Technology V Assessment Unit, Services India S Income Tax Limited(Successor To Liquid Department. Hub India Private Limited), Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase Iii, Midc Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune – 411057. Pan: Aaacl8943J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sudin Sabnis & Shri Siddhesh Khandalkar Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand-Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 05/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2020-21 Dated 02.09.2025 Emanating From The Penalty Order Passed Under Section

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 155Section 155(18)Section 18Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(6)(a)Section 40

Assessing Officer(AO) levied Penalty u/s 270A for under reporting of Income. Aggrieved by the Penalty Order the Assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) who confirmed the Penalty. Then assessee has filed appeal against the order u/s 250 before this ITAT. 9. In this case, admittedly assessee has claimed deduction