What is CIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar authority for?

The first appellate authority cannot dismiss an appeal for default without disposing of the grounds on merits. Dismissal without going into the merits is not justified.

How many judgments cite CIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar?

40 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar (74 ITR 41), spanning 2017 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 144, Section 147, Section 115BBE, Section 250, Section 271(1)(c).

CIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar (74 ITR 41)

NAROTTAM ATMARAM WARDE,RAIGAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

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

ITA 3139/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3139/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Narottam Atmaram Warde, V The Income Tax Koproli, Saral, Alibag, Dist- S Officer, Raigad – 402209. Panvel. Pan: Abypw5023A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ronak Jain Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09/02/2026 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.2012-13 Dated 08.08.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 13.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Leamed Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Interpreting Law & Facts In Dismissing The Appeal For Non-Prosecution

Section 144Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 250(6)

…ly to first appellate proceedings ITA No.3139/PUN/2025 [A] governed by section 250. Courts have consistently held that the ratio of Multiplan India Ltd cannot be applied by CIT(A). The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the matter of ITO v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar 74 ITR 41 (SC) that appeals cannot be dismissed for default and must be decided on merits. 1.5Since the impugned order does not frame points for determination, does not decide the grounds raised, and does not give reasons on merits, the same is void ab Initio, unsustainable in law, and liable to be set aside. On this ground alone, the impugned order passed b…

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 293/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

…that rules framed under the Act cannot go beyond or override the provisions of the Act. Reliance was placed on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including Assam Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam reported in 248 ITR 567 and CIT v. Chennappa Mudaliar reported in 74 ITR 41, to ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 42 of 53 submit that if there is any conflict between the Act and the Rules, the Act must prevail. 53.4 The learned AR further submitted that the mandate to quantify expenditure was introduced only by amendment to the Rules with effect from 01.07.2016, without any corresponding amendment to section 35(2AB) of…

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 292/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

…that rules framed under the Act cannot go beyond or override the provisions of the Act. Reliance was placed on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including Assam Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam reported in 248 ITR 567 and CIT v. Chennappa Mudaliar reported in 74 ITR 41, to ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 42 of 53 submit that if there is any conflict between the Act and the Rules, the Act must prevail. 53.4 The learned AR further submitted that the mandate to quantify expenditure was introduced only by amendment to the Rules with effect from 01.07.2016, without any corresponding amendment to section 35(2AB) of…

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 291/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

…that rules framed under the Act cannot go beyond or override the provisions of the Act. Reliance was placed on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including Assam Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam reported in 248 ITR 567 and CIT v. Chennappa Mudaliar reported in 74 ITR 41, to submit that if there is any conflict between the Act and the Rules, the Act must prevail. 53.4 The learned AR further submitted that the mandate to quantify expenditure was introduced only by amendment to the Rules with effect from 01.07.2016, without any corresponding amendment to section 35(2AB) of the Act. Therefore, DSIR's role of quantific…

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 290/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

…that rules framed under the Act cannot go beyond or override the provisions of the Act. Reliance was placed on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including Assam Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam reported in 248 ITR 567 and CIT v. Chennappa Mudaliar reported in 74 ITR 41, to ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 42 of 53 submit that if there is any conflict between the Act and the Rules, the Act must prevail. 53.4 The learned AR further submitted that the mandate to quantify expenditure was introduced only by amendment to the Rules with effect from 01.07.2016, without any corresponding amendment to section 35(2AB) of…

GHUMLI SHIPPING AGENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

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

ITA 3670/MUM/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosainghumli Shipping Agents Pvt Vs. Ito, Ward 3(1)(3) Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Flat No. 32, 7Th Floor, Bldg Mumbai. No. 3, Tata Mills Hsg, Society, Parel, Mumbai – 400012. Pan/Gir No. Aahcg4357J (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234Section 250

…ke and the issue involved was only physical checkups of TDS amount and no complicated issues are involved. Moreover, it is submitted that the C.I.T. (A) while dismissing the appeal by not condoning the delay was obliged as per the Judgement in the case of: 1) 74 ITR 41 (S.C.) in the case of CIT vs. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar. 2) 359 ITR 371 (Bom.) in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. ITAT and Others. and to decide the case on merits. I therefore, humbly pray that the said default was caused not with any malafide intention but it was only an unusual lapse, since the digital process is recently started…

RAJASTHAN STATE BHARAT SCOUT AND GUIDE,JAIPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

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

ITA 382/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 11(5)

…thority has to exercise its jurisdiction and adjudicate any matter on merits as held in the following judicial pronouncements CIT (Central) v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407/240 Taxman 133 (Bombay) CIT v. S. Cheniappa Mudaliar [1969] 74 ITR 41 (SC) Dolphin Metal India Ltd. v. ITO, [2021] 127 taxmann.com 244/280 Taxman 21/431 ITR 666 (Gujarat) Govt. Telecommunications Employees Co-op Society Ltd. v. ITO [2019] 111 taxmann.com 28/268 Taxman 17 (Madras) 12. The legal reasoning given in the abovementioned judicial pronouncements signifies the fact that legislation has mandated in terms with…

RAJASTHAN STATE BHARAT SCOUT AND GUIDE,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO EXEMPTIONS, JAIPUR

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

ITA 381/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 11(5)

…thority has to exercise its jurisdiction and adjudicate any matter on merits as held in the following judicial pronouncements CIT (Central) v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407/240 Taxman 133 (Bombay) CIT v. S. Cheniappa Mudaliar [1969] 74 ITR 41 (SC) Dolphin Metal India Ltd. v. ITO, [2021] 127 taxmann.com 244/280 Taxman 21/431 ITR 666 (Gujarat) Govt. Telecommunications Employees Co-op Society Ltd. v. ITO [2019] 111 taxmann.com 28/268 Taxman 17 (Madras) 12. The legal reasoning given in the abovementioned judicial pronouncements signifies the fact that legislation has mandated in terms with…

LATE SADIL ALI THROUGH WIFE JAFRI,NAHAN vs. ITO NAHAN, NAHAN

In the result, all three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 581/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Supported By An Affidavit Explaining That The Delay Occurred On Account Of Lack Of Awareness & Communication Difficulties, As The Assessee Is Represented Through The Widow/Legal Heir Of Late Sadiq Ali & The Proceedings Were Conducted Under The Faceless Mechanism.

For Appellant: None (Adj. Application)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR (Virtual Mode)

Section 115BSection 147

…iction as well as factual additions were duly raised. 8. It is a well-established law that the first appellate authority cannot dismiss the appeal ex parte without disposing of the grounds on merits. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar 74 ITR 41 has clearly held that dismissal of an appeal by the CIT(A) for default without going into the merits is not justified. 9. In view of the above, and in the interest of substantial justice, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the level of the Ld. CIT(A). We accordingly set aside the impugned orders passed by…

LATE SADIQ ALI THROUGH WIFE JAFRI ,NAHAN SIRMOUR vs. ITO NAHAN, NAHAN

In the result, all three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 580/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Supported By An Affidavit Explaining That The Delay Occurred On Account Of Lack Of Awareness & Communication Difficulties, As The Assessee Is Represented Through The Widow/Legal Heir Of Late Sadiq Ali & The Proceedings Were Conducted Under The Faceless Mechanism.

For Appellant: None (Adj. Application)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR (Virtual Mode)

Section 115BSection 147

…iction as well as factual additions were duly raised. 8. It is a well-established law that the first appellate authority cannot dismiss the appeal ex parte without disposing of the grounds on merits. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar 74 ITR 41 has clearly held that dismissal of an appeal by the CIT(A) for default without going into the merits is not justified. 9. In view of the above, and in the interest of substantial justice, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the level of the Ld. CIT(A). We accordingly set aside the impugned orders passed by…

LATE SADIQ ALI THROUGH LR JAFRI ,VILL.JAGATPUR PO MAJRA vs. ITO NAHAN, NAHAN

In the result, all three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 579/CHANDI/2024[2012-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 May 2025AY 2012-23

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Supported By An Affidavit Explaining That The Delay Occurred On Account Of Lack Of Awareness & Communication Difficulties, As The Assessee Is Represented Through The Widow/Legal Heir Of Late Sadiq Ali & The Proceedings Were Conducted Under The Faceless Mechanism.

For Appellant: None (Adj. Application)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR (Virtual Mode)

Section 115BSection 147

…iction as well as factual additions were duly raised. 8. It is a well-established law that the first appellate authority cannot dismiss the appeal ex parte without disposing of the grounds on merits. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar 74 ITR 41 has clearly held that dismissal of an appeal by the CIT(A) for default without going into the merits is not justified. 9. In view of the above, and in the interest of substantial justice, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the level of the Ld. CIT(A). We accordingly set aside the impugned orders passed by…

KAVITA MILIND RANANAWARE,PANVEL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos 1116 & 1117/Mum/2024 are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1117/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: ShriP.D. Choughule (Addl. CIT)SR DR

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271Section 68Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRIAMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.1116/Mum/2024 - 2013-14 I.T.A No.1117/Mum/2024 - 2013-14 Kavita Milind Rananware vs The Income Tax Officer FL 102 Ganesh Pooja Plot 221 Ward 1, Panvel, Mumbai NAD 232 New Panvel Raigad Navi Mumbai (Maharashtra) PIN code 410 206 PAN : AJNPR9796E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : None Respondent by : ShriP.D. Choughule (Addl. CIT)SR DR Date of hearing : 23/07/2024 Date of pronouncement : 25/ 07/2024 O R D E R PER ANIKESH BANERJEE, J.M: Both the appeal…

KAVITA MILIND RANANAWARE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos 1116 & 1117/Mum/2024 are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1116/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: ShriP.D. Choughule (Addl. CIT)SR DR

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271Section 68Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRIAMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.1116/Mum/2024 - 2013-14 I.T.A No.1117/Mum/2024 - 2013-14 Kavita Milind Rananware vs The Income Tax Officer FL 102 Ganesh Pooja Plot 221 Ward 1, Panvel, Mumbai NAD 232 New Panvel Raigad Navi Mumbai (Maharashtra) PIN code 410 206 PAN : AJNPR9796E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : None Respondent by : ShriP.D. Choughule (Addl. CIT)SR DR Date of hearing : 23/07/2024 Date of pronouncement : 25/ 07/2024 O R D E R PER ANIKESH BANERJEE, J.M: Both the appeal…

M/S. CONCRETE DEVELOPERS,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-1(3), NAGPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 39/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Kapil Hirani [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr KC Kanojiya [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 246A(1)(a)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 253(1)(a)Section 40a

…authorities exercising appellate jurisdictions are duty to bound to deal with the merits of the case even in ex-parte proceedings and conversely are not empowered to dismiss the appeal in limine for non- prosecution viz; ‘CIT Vs S Chenniappa Mudaliar’ [1969, 74 ITR 41 (SC)], ‘Dolphin Metal India Ltd Vs ITO’ [2021, 431 ITR 666 (Guj)], ‘Government Telecommunication Employees Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs ITO’ [2019, 111 taxmann.com 28 (Mad)], ‘Rajendra Prasad Borah Vs ITAT’ [2008, 302 ITR 243 (Gau)] and ‘Tribhuwan Kumar Vs CIT’ [2007, 294 ITR 401 (Raj)]. 7. In view of the above discussion and respectfully following…

M/S. CONCRETE DEVELOPERS,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 38/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Kapil Hirani [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr KC Kanojiya [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 246A(1)(a)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 253(1)(a)Section 40a

…authorities exercising appellate jurisdictions are duty to bound to deal with the merits of the case even in ex-parte proceedings and conversely are not empowered to dismiss the appeal in limine for non- prosecution viz; ‘CIT Vs S Chenniappa Mudaliar’ [1969, 74 ITR 41 (SC)], ‘Dolphin Metal India Ltd Vs ITO’ [2021, 431 ITR 666 (Guj)], ‘Government Telecommunication Employees Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs ITO’ [2019, 111 taxmann.com 28 (Mad)], ‘Rajendra Prasad Borah Vs ITAT’ [2008, 302 ITR 243 (Gau)] and ‘Tribhuwan Kumar Vs CIT’ [2007, 294 ITR 401 (Raj)]. 7. In view of the above discussion and respectfully following…

M/S. CONCRETE DEVELOPERS,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTREAL CIRCEL-1(3), NAGPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 37/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Kapil Hirani [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr KC Kanojiya [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 246A(1)(a)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 253(1)(a)Section 40a

…authorities exercising appellate jurisdictions are duty to bound to deal with the merits of the case even in ex-parte proceedings and conversely are not empowered to dismiss the appeal in limine for non- prosecution viz; ‘CIT Vs S Chenniappa Mudaliar’ [1969, 74 ITR 41 (SC)], ‘Dolphin Metal India Ltd Vs ITO’ [2021, 431 ITR 666 (Guj)], ‘Government Telecommunication Employees Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs ITO’ [2019, 111 taxmann.com 28 (Mad)], ‘Rajendra Prasad Borah Vs ITAT’ [2008, 302 ITR 243 (Gau)] and ‘Tribhuwan Kumar Vs CIT’ [2007, 294 ITR 401 (Raj)]. 7. In view of the above discussion and respectfully following…

M/S. CONCRETE DEVELOPERS,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 36/NAG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Kapil Hirani [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr KC Kanojiya [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 246A(1)(a)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 253(1)(a)Section 40a

…authorities exercising appellate jurisdictions are duty to bound to deal with the merits of the case even in ex-parte proceedings and conversely are not empowered to dismiss the appeal in limine for non- prosecution viz; ‘CIT Vs S Chenniappa Mudaliar’ [1969, 74 ITR 41 (SC)], ‘Dolphin Metal India Ltd Vs ITO’ [2021, 431 ITR 666 (Guj)], ‘Government Telecommunication Employees Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs ITO’ [2019, 111 taxmann.com 28 (Mad)], ‘Rajendra Prasad Borah Vs ITAT’ [2008, 302 ITR 243 (Gau)] and ‘Tribhuwan Kumar Vs CIT’ [2007, 294 ITR 401 (Raj)]. 7. In view of the above discussion and respectfully following…

M/S. CONCRETE DEVELOPERS, NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 35/NAG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Kapil Hirani [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr KC Kanojiya [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 246A(1)(a)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 253(1)(a)Section 40a

…authorities exercising appellate jurisdictions are duty to bound to deal with the merits of the case even in ex-parte proceedings and conversely are not empowered to dismiss the appeal in limine for non- prosecution viz; ‘CIT Vs S Chenniappa Mudaliar’ [1969, 74 ITR 41 (SC)], ‘Dolphin Metal India Ltd Vs ITO’ [2021, 431 ITR 666 (Guj)], ‘Government Telecommunication Employees Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs ITO’ [2019, 111 taxmann.com 28 (Mad)], ‘Rajendra Prasad Borah Vs ITAT’ [2008, 302 ITR 243 (Gau)] and ‘Tribhuwan Kumar Vs CIT’ [2007, 294 ITR 401 (Raj)]. 7. In view of the above discussion and respectfully following…

M/S. CONCRETE DEVELOPERS,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 34/NAG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Kapil Hirani [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr KC Kanojiya [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 246A(1)(a)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 253(1)(a)Section 40a

…authorities exercising appellate jurisdictions are duty to bound to deal with the merits of the case even in ex-parte proceedings and conversely are not empowered to dismiss the appeal in limine for non- prosecution viz; ‘CIT Vs S Chenniappa Mudaliar’ [1969, 74 ITR 41 (SC)], ‘Dolphin Metal India Ltd Vs ITO’ [2021, 431 ITR 666 (Guj)], ‘Government Telecommunication Employees Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs ITO’ [2019, 111 taxmann.com 28 (Mad)], ‘Rajendra Prasad Borah Vs ITAT’ [2008, 302 ITR 243 (Gau)] and ‘Tribhuwan Kumar Vs CIT’ [2007, 294 ITR 401 (Raj)]. 7. In view of the above discussion and respectfully following…

SEEMA PANDIT,MOUNT AU vs. ITO, WARD, MOUNT ABU

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

ITA 160/JODH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: The Cit(A) To Rectify The Order. The Cit(A) Has Rejected The Application U/S 154 Vide Order Dated 29.3.2019 & Served The Order On The Assessee On 19.4.2019. After Rejection Of His Application U/S 154, The Assessee Has Immediately Filed This Appeal Before The Hon'Ble Tribunal..

Section 154Section 250(6)

…e appeal in limine and without deciding the appeal on merits. ii). That the ITAT Kolkata in decision dated 5.5.2016, [2016] 75 taxmann.com 118 in Partha Mitra VS ITO has relied on the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. 5. Chenniappa Mudaliar [1969] 74 ITR 41 which has held that "dismissal of an appeal can only be done by giving a decision on merits on question of facts and law and not by merely disposing of the appeal on the ground that the party concerned has failed to appear: Admittedly, the cases relied upon by the CIT(A) of Multiplan India (P) Ltd and M.P. High Court decision in Estate of late Tuko…

CIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar

What is CIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar

NAROTTAM ATMARAM WARDE,RAIGAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

GHUMLI SHIPPING AGENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

RAJASTHAN STATE BHARAT SCOUT AND GUIDE,JAIPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

RAJASTHAN STATE BHARAT SCOUT AND GUIDE,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO EXEMPTIONS, JAIPUR

LATE SADIL ALI THROUGH WIFE JAFRI,NAHAN vs. ITO NAHAN, NAHAN

LATE SADIQ ALI THROUGH WIFE JAFRI ,NAHAN SIRMOUR vs. ITO NAHAN, NAHAN

LATE SADIQ ALI THROUGH LR JAFRI ,VILL.JAGATPUR PO MAJRA vs. ITO NAHAN, NAHAN

KAVITA MILIND RANANAWARE,PANVEL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

KAVITA MILIND RANANAWARE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

M/S. CONCRETE DEVELOPERS,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-1(3), NAGPUR

M/S. CONCRETE DEVELOPERS,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

M/S. CONCRETE DEVELOPERS,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTREAL CIRCEL-1(3), NAGPUR

M/S. CONCRETE DEVELOPERS,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

M/S. CONCRETE DEVELOPERS, NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

M/S. CONCRETE DEVELOPERS,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

SEEMA PANDIT,MOUNT AU vs. ITO, WARD, MOUNT ABU