How many judgments cite CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another?

1,656 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another (118 ITR 461), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 250, Section 144, Section 143(3), Section 142(1).

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another

118 ITR 461Supreme Court of India1997#19 most cited

What is CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another authority for?

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.

1,656

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya · 118 ITR 461 · appeal · pursuing appeal · effectively pursuing appeal · filing appeal · assistance from assessee · opportunity of being heard · section 250 · section 250(6)

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 250 Section 144 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 250(6)Section 144B

Issues it is cited on

section 250(6)speaking order section 25 opportunity of being heard section 250 condonation of delay section 69a appeal before the tribunal section 142(1)section 144 section 148 section 147

Judgments citing CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another

M/S K.N.S. Exports Private Limited, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 14/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

…But thereafter he notes that he issued three notices to the assessee on 23.09.2024, 1.10.2024 and 9.10.2024, all of which were met with non- compliance therefore, following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattacharya and Others 118 ITR 461 (SC) and the ITAT order in the case of M/s Chhabra Land and Housing Limited (ITA No.1025-1027/CHD/2005), he dismissed the appeal of the assessee, for want of pursuit. 5. The assessee is aggrieved by these orders and has accordingly come in appeal before us. Sh. Shubham Rastogi, FCA (hereinafter referred to as the ld. AR) submitted that the assess…

Suman Takkallapalli, Warangal vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 44/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA M Poornachandra RaoFor Respondent: Shri Waseem UR Rehman, Sr. AR

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…ase. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non- prosecution by following certain judicial precedents 4 ITA.No.44/Hyd./2025 including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs., B.N. Bhattacharya [1977] 118 ITR 461 (SC). The learned CIT(A) had also discussed the issue on merit and sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards cash payments to chit funds during the demonetization period. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. CA, M. Poornachandra Rao, Learned Counsel for the As…

Arti Deepakkumar Pandit, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Dwarka

ITA 127/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 127/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Arti Deepakkumar Pandit Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 204,Shyam Dwarika Low Rise, Ito Ward – 1, Madhapar Chowkdi, Near Swami, Dwarka - 361335 Narayan Mandir, Rajkot - 360006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amnpp0638A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By :Ms. Amoli Gusani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/07/2025

For Appellant: Ms. Amoli Gusani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. SR. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…n this regard, we place reliance upon following case laws: CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del)1. Estate of Late TukojiraoHokar vs. CWT 223 ITR 840 (M.P.)2. New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P&H)3. CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee and Another 118 ITR 461 (SC). Arti D. Pandit Therefore, considering the above factual and legal position, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed for non-prosecution. As a result, the assessment by the AO is confirmed." 5. That the assessee filed an appeal against the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) before the Tribunal. 6. At the outset, that the appeal filed…

Bhawani Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 4(1), Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 471/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Kataria, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147

…absent and the Tribunal on facts of the case is of the view that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal, it can in exercise its inherent power to dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution. In the case of CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattacharya reported at 118 ITR 461, it was held that appeal does not mean merely filing of appeal but effectively pursuing it. 4 The Hon'ble ITAT Delhi (ITR No.2006/Del/2011 dt. 19.12.2001) in the case of Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. DCIT had dismissed appeal for non attendance at hearings, inferring that assessee was not interested in prosecuting of appeal. 10 Bhawani Singh vs.…

Husain Ahamed, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward, Pratapgarh

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 420/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar Kabra, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh euh"k cksjkM] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI MANISH BORAD, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 420/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2016-17 cuke Husain Ahamed ITO, Near Forest Department Arnod Vs. Ward Road, Pratapgarh Pratapgarh LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AQNPA5391H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Kumar Kabra, CA & MS. Prachla Kabra, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shr…

Shri Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Kharkhana Limited, Pune vs. ACIT Circle-7, Pune

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

ITA 121/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Hanmant Dattatray DhavaleFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…. CIT(A) on merit. 7. We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the material on records. The appellate order reveals that the Ld. CIT(A) has applied the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattarcharjee and Another, 118 ITR 461 (SC) and various other cases cited therein and dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. No doubt, the Ld. CIT(A) may decide the appeal ex-parte where the assessee does not prosecute his appeal inspite of several opportunities. None-the-less, he has to adhere to the legislative mandate enshrined in sub-section (6) of section 250 o…

Shri Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Kharkhana Limited, Pune vs. ACIT Circle-7, Pune

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

ITA 120/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Hanmant Dattatray DhavaleFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

Ratnagiri District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Ratnagiri vs. ITO Ward 3, Ratnagiri

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

ITA 1140/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)

…t was not sought. In such situation, the only AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18 conclusion which can be drawn is that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal. 4.3. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BN. Bhattacharjee and Another (118 ITR 461) that appeal does not mean merely filing of memo of appeal but also pursuing it effectively. In cases where the appellant does not want to pursue the appeal, appellate authorities have inherent power to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Chemipol vs. Union of India in Excise Appeal N…

Ratnagiri District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Ratnagiri vs. ITO Ward 2, Ratnagiri

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

ITA 1139/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)

Tasleem Bano, Jaipur vs. Ward-5(4) Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 171/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Ms. Apeksha Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT -DR a

Section 127Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 292B

…count. No response has been received from the appellant till date. It is reasonable to infer from the continued non-compliance that the appellant is not serious to pursue its appeal. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee and Another, 118 ITR 461(SC) observed that preferring an appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively prosecuting it. Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, (1997) (223 ITR 480) (M.P.) dismissed the reference in default and for not taking necessary steps. Similar view has been taken by I.T.A.T. Delhi Bench in the case…

Ramchandra Dagdu Nikam, Satara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Satara

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

ITA 2552/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A ShahFor Respondent: Shri Vishal Makawane

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

…ufficient time and opportunities and accordingly, is not maintainable. The relevant citations are briefed as under for placing reliance to adduce appellant's non-prosecution of appeal as not maintainable. 1. In the case of CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & Another 118 ITR 461 (relevant pages 477 and 478) wherein their Lordships have held that "the appeal does not mean merely filing of appeal but effectively pursuing it". 2. In the case of Estate of Late TukojiRao Holker Vs. CWT 223 IR 480 (MP) while dismissing the reference made at the instance of assessee in default made following observations in their order. "If the…

Jasbir Singh Oberoi, Raipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 311/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.311/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Jasbir Singh Oberoi Legal Heir Late Parvinder Kaur Oberoi C/O. Oberoi Tour & Travels, Shop No.1, Wali Mohd. Building, K.K Road, Moudhapara, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Aagpo2025P ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.311/RPR/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Jasbir Singh Oberoi Legal heir Late Parvinder Kaur Oberoi C/o. Oberoi Tour & Travels, Shop No.1, Wali Mohd. Building, K.K Road, Moudhapara, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) PAN: AAGPO2025P ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA R…

Active Alluminium Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1763/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Divyang Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 150Section 250Section 68

…issued, even adjournment was not sought. In such situation, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal. 6.2 It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattacharjee and Another (118 ITR 461) that appeal does not mean merely filing of Active Alluminium Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Year –2016-17 - 4– memo of appeal but also pursuing it effectively. In cases where the appellant does not want to pursue the appeal, appellate authorities have inherent power to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in…

Goldie Sud, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3475/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2010-11 Goldie Sud, The Income Tax Officer, 191-192, Ward-24(1)(4) & 24(1)(1), Shaheed Bhagatsingh Chsl, Vs. Piramal Chamber, J.B. Nagar, Lalbaug, Parel, Andheri East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400059. Pan : Amnps2413C (Appellant) (Respondent) S.A. No. 71/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3475/Mum/2025) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Goldie Sud, The Income Tax Officer, 191-192, Ward-24(1)(4) & 24(1)(1), Shaheed Bhagatsingh Chsl, Vs. Piramal Chamber, J.B. Nagar, Lalbaug, Parel, Andheri East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400059. Pan : Amnps2413C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Goldie Sud (A‟S In Person) Revenue By : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Goldie Sud (A‟s in person)For Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…s issued during the physical hearing and the submissions filed by the assessee. We further find that the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine filed by the assessee, placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in B.N. Bhattacharjee, 118 ITR 461 (SC), merely on the basis of non- compliance with notices by the assessee without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee on merits, as required under section 250(6) of the Act. 9. From the perusal of the record, it is further evident that the assessment was also concluded on a best judgment basis under section 144 of the Act in the abse…

Dashrathbhai Madhubhai Jadav, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 653/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 653/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Dashrathbhai Madhubhai Jadav, The Income Tax Officer, At Post Khoraj Gam, बनाम/ Ward-3(3)(1), V/S. Taluka Sanand, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380001. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aotpj7754H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Revenue By : Shri R P Rastogi, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

…earing notice dated 04.10.2024 requiring submissions by 21.10.2024. The CIT(A) held that no documentary evidence had been furnished, and relying on decisions in CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. [(1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del)] and CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee [(1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC)], dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal: 1. The ld. CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in confirming addition made by the AO of Rs. 36,02,300/- on the alleged ground that the appellant failed to explain source of cash depo…

Jitendra Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 1(1)(3), Surat

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

ITA 20/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.20/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Jitendra Mehta, Vs. Ito, Office No.M-24, Mezn Floor, Ward – 1(1)(3), 10/21, Flox Chamber, Tata Road Surat No. 1, Opera House, Mumbai – 400004, Maharashtra "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ambpm9018P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/06/2025

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 270ASection 50CSection 55A

…t the appellant was not interested in pursuing his appeal and he had no documentary evidence in support of his claim. The CIT(A) relied on the decisions in cases of M/s Chhabra Land & Housing Ltd., ITA No. 1025 to 1027/Chd/2005 and B. N. Bhattacharjee & Ors., 118 ITR 461 (SC) and held that the appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing the same. The CIT(A) further observed that the appellant was provided adequate opportunity of being heard; however, he had remained non-compliant. No material fact had been brought on record to rebut the findings of the AO. In absence of any documenta…

Veer Project, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur

ITA 332/RPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 332/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Chhabda, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 127(3)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…count. No response has been received from the appellant till date. It is reasonable to infer from the continued non-compliance that the appellant is not serious to pursue its appeal. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee and Another, 118 ITR 461 (SC) observed that preferring an appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively prosecuting it. Hon'ble M. P. High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Hofkar vs. CWT, (1997) (223 ITR 480) (M.P.) dismissed the reference in default and for not taking necessary steps. Similar view has been taken by I.T.A.T. Delhi Bench in the ca…

Mr. Rahul Tulshiram Patil, Raigad vs. ITO Ward 5, Panvel

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

ITA 1025/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1025/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

…es issued by ld.CIT(A) on 24.01.2025 and 12.02.2025 and thereafter adjournment request made on 20.02.2025 was rejected. Ld.CIT(A) referring to the judgment of 2 Rahul Tulshiram Patil Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattacharjee & Other reported in 118 ITR 461 (SC) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee observing that appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but should be effectively pursued. However, Ld.CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issues on merit as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017)…

Ram Jeevan Soni, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal)

ITA 799/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 250(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE: DR MITHA LAL MEENA, AM & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Ram Jeevan Soni cuke The ITO 281, Manji Ka Hatta, Paota Vs. Ward- 3(1) Jodhpur – 342 001 (Raj) Jodhpur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABMPS 3201 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Shri Rajendra Sisodia, Advocate jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 06/05/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 02 / 06 /2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M…

Venkataratnam Tiriminchi, Nellore vs. ITO., Ward-1, Nellore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 434/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Us :

For Appellant: Shri S. Prasad Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Vishnu Priya, Sr.D.R

Section 147

…more to submit except for raising the ground. 4.1 The Hon'ble ITAT in ITA No. 1025-1027/Chandi/2005 for the A.Y. 2002-03 in the case of M/s Chhabra Land and Housing Ltd. after following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattachargee, 118 ITR 461 (SC) held that the appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it. Keeping in view of 7 the aforesaid factual position, the appeal filed by the appellant is, therefore, decided on merits. 5. In the instance of the case the appellant failed to make any submissions in support of grounds of appeal, this gives rise to an…