How many judgments cite CIT v. Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. (Mad)?

40 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. (Mad) (215 ITR 883), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. (Mad) come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 131, Section 132, Section 143(3), Section 153C, Section 37.

CIT v. Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. (Mad)

215 ITR 883High Court1995#2923 most cited

What is CIT v. Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. (Mad) authority for?

A best judgment assessment is valid if the estimate made by the Assessing Officer is not arbitrary, has a nexus with discovered facts, and the Assessing Officer is considered the best judge of the situation. Rejection of books of accounts is justified in such cases.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. · best judgment assessment · arbitrary estimate · nexus with facts · rejection of books of accounts · section 145(3) · Assessing Officer as best judge

Sections most often in play

Section 1961 Section 131 Section 132 Section 143(3)Section 153C Section 37 Section 133A Section 145

Issues it is cited on

circular trading prohibited by law summons under section 131 section 10(23c)(iiiab)rule of consistency best judgment assessment rejection of books of account section 30 section 145(3)documents seized profits and gains of business or profession section 145

Judgments citing CIT v. Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. (Mad)

Lloyds Metals and Energy Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -7(1), Mumbai

ITA 2642/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153C

…After considering the overall facts and circumstances, the assessee's income is considered @ 5% of Rs557001849/- The above estimate gets further vindicated by a judgement of the Honourable Madras Court in the case of CIT vs. Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. (Mad) 215 ITR 883, wherein the Hon'ble Court adjudicated that best judgement assessment is valid so long as the estimate made by Assessing officer is not arbitrary and has nexus with facts discovered and the same cannot be questioned. It also adjudicated the Assessing Officer is the best judge of the situation. Thus, rejection of books of accounts is justified. Ac…

Lloyds Metals and Energy Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -7(1), Mumbai

ITA 2641/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153C

Lloyds Metals and Energy Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, 7(1), Mumbai

ITA 2640/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153C

Jayesh Jadavji Thakkar, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 930/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.930/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Jayesh Jadavji Thakkar, Vs. The Ito, 402, Paradise Apartment, Mahadev Ward - 3(2)(1), Faliu, Katargam, Surat - 395004 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajmpt4689H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2025

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 253(3)Section 69A

…lso relied on the decision in cases of (i) Pawan Kumar Pareek vs. ITO, 2010-TIOL-718-HC-RAJ-IT, (ii) CWT vs. Moor and General Finance Ltd. (Del), 332 ITR 1, (iii) CIT vs. P. P. Khader Haji (Ker), 234 ITR 461 and (iv) CIT vs. Rayala corporation (P) Ltd. (Mad), 215 ITR 883. The AO also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Srilekha Banerjee & Ors. vs. CIT, reported in 1964 AIR 697 where it was held that receipt of money or conversion of notes is itself prima facie evidence against the assessee on which the Department can proceed in absence of good explanation. Further, the AO found that th…

Kantilal Dayalbhai Rambhai, Surat vs. ITO(Int. Tax), Surat

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

ITA 928/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.928/Srt/2024

Section 250Section 253(3)Section 45

…e the sale consideration for immovable property and did not offer any LTCG income for taxation, the AO made the addition of Rs.3,79,59,184/-being undisclosed LTCG. The AO also relied upon the various decisions in cases of CIT vs. Rayala Corporation (P.) Ltd., 215 ITR 883 (Mad.) and CIT vs. P. P. Khader Haji, 234 ITR 461 (Ker). The AO assessed the total income of Rs.3,79,59,180/- against the Nil returned income. Penalty proceedings also initiated by AO u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274, 271 (1)(c) r.w.s. 274 and 271F of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The findings of t…

Dharmendra Kumar Shukla, Jabalpur vs. Pr.CIT-1, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 13/JAB/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 44A

…1963, as well as the settled legal position that an appellate authority cannot, by affording an opportunity to substantiate his claims, convert, in effect, a best judgment assessment into a section 143(3) assessment (CIT v. Rayala Corporation (P.) Ltd. [1995] 215 ITR 883 (SC)). 5. We, in view of the foregoing, uphold the impugned order on both the aspects on which the AO, in the view of the ld. Pr. CIT, has not made proper inquiry. We may, though, state our observations in the matter, deemed relevant in the framing the fresh assessment as directed by the revisionary authority, as under: i) The sale of books, copi…

Aggressive Digital Systems Private Limited, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 874/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 874/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Aggressive Digital Systems Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 596-597, Sector-8, Imt Ward-1(1), Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana-122050 Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aanca7751J Assessee By : Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Anand Kumar Kedia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.01.2022

For Appellant: Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anand Kumar Kedia, CIT DR

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

…t of the Assessing Officer cannot be converted into regular assessment at appellate stage by producing fresh material the best judgement of the Assessing Officer cannot be questioned so long as it is not arbitrary & has a nexus with facts. RAYALA CORPORATION 215 ITR 883 (Madras), 898, SUFALI ABDVLALI 90 ITR 271, 278-280 (SC) 7. Before DRP the assessee has requested for inclusion of three comparables which are in the business of set top box manufacturing:- A. Laxmi Remove Pvt. Ltd. B. Logic Eastern Pvt. Ltd C. STB Technology Pvt. Ltd It is not clear how the assessee has cherry picked these three manufacturer…

M/S.Asit Dixit, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward2(2), Jabalpur

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

ITA 19/JAB/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Oct 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year : 2005-06 Asit Dixit, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(2), Jabalpur (M.P.) Jabalpur [Pan: Aanfm 5798A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sanjay Seth, Ca Respondent By Sh. S.K. Halder, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 07/10/2021

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)

…ITA No. 19/Jab/2020 (AY 2005-06) Asit Dixit v. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR (SMC) (through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2005-06 Asit Dixit, Income Tax Officer, vs. Ward-2(2), Jabalpur (M.P.) Jabalpur [PAN: AANFM 5798A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Sanjay Seth, CA Respondent by Sh. S.K. Halder, Sr. DR Date of hearing 16/09/2021 Date of pronouncement 07/10/2021 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, Mumbai…

Shri Prince Rai, Damoh vs. Income Tax Officer, Damoh

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

ITA 145/JAB/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year : 2009-10 Prince Rai, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward - Damoh Damoh (M.P.) (M.P.) [Pan: Ahlpr 7469N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. H.S. Modh, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Swati Agarwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2021

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…rial on record or is without taking all and only the relevant facts into account. This represents trite law, for which reference may be made to CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC); CIT v. Rayala 4 Prince Rai v. ITO Corporation (P.) Ltd. [1995] 215 ITR 883 (Mad). How could the said law apply in the instant case where there has been, on the contrary, proper representation before the AO, who has completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) considering the material on record and the assessee’s explanation/s, not considered by the ld. CIT(A)? The reliance on the said judgment by him is, clearly, misconceived.…

Sh. Nitya Nand, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

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

ITA 6508/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 10Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 28Section 44ASection 56(2)(viii)Section 89

…ortunity", make it clear that it does not apply to an assessment under section 144, i.e., where the assessee does not co-operate with the department ” (emphasis supplied). 5.13 Similarly. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 215 ITR 883 (Mad) has not countenanced the non-cooperative attitude of the assessee. In that case the appeal of the Department was allowed by the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Court made the following observations after referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 176 ITRJ535 (SC) : “What has surprised us, however, in the instant case, is the…

Major Singh, Amritsar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed on the afore-said terms

ITA 426/ASR/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar01 Jul 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 426/Asr/2015 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (SMC) BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 426/Asr/2015 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Major Singh, vs. ITO, Ward 4(3), 323-A Sant Avenue, Amritsar Amritsar [PAN: BMNPS 7534K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ashwani Kalia (Adv.) Respondent by: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.) Date of Hearing: 03.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 01.07.2019 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Amritsar ('CIT(A)' for short) dated 09.6.2015, partly allow…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Jammu vs. Sh. Neeraj Aggarwal, Jammu

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 349/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 349/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Alok Kumar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sh. S. Krishnan (Adv.)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 80

…ome Tax Rules, 1962, - ‘the Rules’ hereinafter), the bone of contention between the assessee and the Revenue, would come into play only in the case of s. 143(3) assessment. As explained in CIT v. Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. [1995] 15 ITO v. Neeraj Aggarwal 215 ITR 883 (Mad.), the best judgment assessment is of the AO and not of any other, implying an appellate authority. Admitting further materials and explanations would, under the circumstances, operate to convert a section 144 assessment into a section 143(3) assessment, which is not permissible in law. The purview of an appellate authority in such a case wo…

Income Tax Officeer, Ward - 2(2), Jammu vs. M/S Nikhil Infra - Tech Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 373/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 373/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. R. L. Gupta (Adv.)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 361Section 68

…material. This as he could not do so without first assailing the invocation of section 144 by the AO. This is as it is his best judgment assessment, and not of anyone else, even as clarified by the Hon'ble Court in CIT vs. Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. [1995] 215 ITR 883 (Mad). The purview of an appellate authority, as further explained by it, is only to reappraise the evidence relied upon by the AO. Of course, the same has to be reliable, i.e., could be relied upon. The ld. CIT(A) has in the present case not impugned the framing of assessment u/s. 144. He, though called for the remand 4 ITA No. 373 (Asr)/2017…

Sh. Jasbir Singh Prop., Amritsar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 507/ASR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 507/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)Section 145Section 145(3)

…ore, could not be considered by him and, nor consequently, by an appellate authority while deciding on a best judgment assessment. Placing reliance on the material not before the AO, would amount to, as explained in CIT vs. Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. [1995] 215 ITR 883 (Mad), converting a section 144 assessment into a section 143(3) assessment, and which is clearly not permissible. It is, after all, in law, his best judgment assessment and not of any other. His action in adopting an arbitrary rate of 8% stands already modified by the first appellate authority by taking into consideration the disclosed result fo…

Ajay Kumar Baid, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5946/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2008 - 2009 Ajay Kumar Baid Income Tax Officer 14(3)(1) 1St Floor, Chandra Mahal, Mumbai बनाम/ 241, Princess Street, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue P.A. No. Aaapb5350N

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

…ision in accordance with law, thereby effectively converting a section 144 assessment (dated 13.12.2006), which aspect of the assessment was not in dispute, into a section 143(3) assessment. The Hon’ble High Court in CIT vs. Rayala Corporation P. Ltd. [1995] 215 ITR 883 (Mad) has clarified that this is impermissible in law. It stands explained that the assessing authority is the best judge of the situation. It is his best judgment and not of anyone else. The question as to whether he has committed any error in his judgment u/s. 144 of the Act can be decided only on the basis of the materials gathered by him and…

Olympus Elevator Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal (in ITA No

ITA 149/CHNY/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Sanath Kumar Raha, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 15.05.2017

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)

…els Shipping Service [1993] 199 ITR 1 (SC); CIT v. C.C.C. Holdings [2003] 260 ITR 433 (Mad); CIT vs. Ramnath Goenka (Decd.) & Othrs.[2001] 252 ITR 653, 654 (Mad); Thanthi Trust v. Asst. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 117 (Mad); CIT vs. Rayala Corporation (P.) Ltd. [1995] 215 ITR 883 (Mad); CIT v. Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd. [1983] 140 ITR 705 (Mad); Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (Bom-FB); Controller of Estate Duty v. R.Brahadeeswaran [1987] 163 ITR 680 (Mad); CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 499 (Guj-FB), considering the issue in its different aspects. That rules 11 & 2…

Olympus Elevator Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal (in ITA No

ITA 148/CHNY/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Sanath Kumar Raha, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 15.05.2017

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Rita Plastic (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 4159/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. S.K.Yadav & Sh.Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

…ssessing Officer, if there is a reasonable nexus between the basis adopted by the Assessing Officer and the estimate made by him. I.T.A .No.-4159/Del/2011 Page 11 of 15 (E.1) Hon'ble Madras High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Rayala Corporation (P.) Ltd. 215 ITR 883 (Mad.) took note of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CST vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (supra). Explaining best judgment assessment, Hon'ble Madras High Court held as under in the case of CIT vs. Rayala Corporation (P.) Ltd. (supra):- "In a best judgment assessment so long as the estimate made by the assessing authority is not arbitrary…

JCIT, Ghaziabad vs. M/S. System Controls & Transformers Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

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

ITA 5335/DEL/2011[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2017AY 1994-95

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Anadi N. Mishrasystem Controls & Transformers Pvt. Jcit, Ltd., Range-2, Cgo-2, Vs. Ghaziabad Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd, Hapur Road, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/sh. Sanjiv Sapra, Adv & A.S. Jindal

Section 145(2)Section 234BSection 40A(3)

…t substitute their best judgement for that of the Assessing Officer, if there is a reasonable nexus between the basis adopted by the Assessing Officer and the estimate made by him. Hon'ble Madras High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Rayala Corporation (P.) Ltd. 215 ITR 883 (Mad.) took note of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CST vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (supra). Explaining best judgment assessment, Hon'ble Madras High Court held as under in the case of CIT vs. Rayala Corporation (P.) Ltd. (supra) "In a best judgment assessment so long as the estimate made by the assessing authority is not arbitrary a…

Agile Electric Sub Assembly (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA 2497/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2497/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri T.Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pathlavath Peerya, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 79

…r which there is ample authority, and toward which reference is made to some decisions, viz. Kapurchand Shrimal (supra); C.C.C. Holdings (supra); CIT vs. Ramnath Goenka (Decd.) & Othrs.[2001] 252 ITR 653, 654 (Mad); CIT vs. Rayala Corporation (P.) Ltd. [1995] 215 ITR 883 (Mad); Ramilaben Ratilal Shah vs. CIT [2006] 282 ITR 176 (Guj); CIT vs. P.B. Corporation [2004] 266 ITR 548 (Guj). The decisions, rendered in different fact situations, signify that no restrictions are placed by the statute on the powers of the Appellate Tribunal in the matter of disposing an appeal before it, with a view to deliver justice and i…