“advance tax”

Chapter XVII - Collection & Recovery (Advance tax)Chapter XVII-CSection 2(1) / Chapter XVII-C / ITR Schedule IT1,785 judgments

The decision most relied on for advance tax is Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT (196 ITR 188), cited in 289 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on advance tax

Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT

196 ITR 188 · 1992 · Supreme Court

289

citing judgments

Provisions in taxing statutes that grant incentives, concessions, or exemptions for promoting economic growth and industrialization must be interpreted liberally and purposively. Any restrictions placed on such provisions should also be construed reasonably to advance their objective, not frustrate it.

DIT v. GE Packaged Power Inc.

373 ITR 65 · 2015 · High Court

199

citing judgments

Interest under section 234B for default in payment of advance tax is not leviable when the entire income is subject to tax deduction at source under section 195, as no advance tax liability arises for the assessee in such circumstances.

Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT

280 ITR 357 · 2006 · High Court

182

citing judgments

The expression "sufficient cause" for condoning delay in filing appeals must receive a liberal and purposive construction. This approach aims to advance substantial justice, which is of paramount importance.

Pradip Kumar Malhotra v. CIT

338 ITR 538 · 2011 · High Court

152

citing judgments

Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, which addresses deemed dividends, does not apply to loans or advances provided by a company to its shareholders if these transactions occur in the normal course of business, are driven by business expediency, or are made in consideration of a benefit conferred upon the company by the shareholder. Conversely, gratuitous loans or advances given to shareholders fall within the purview of this section.

DIT v. NGC Network Asia LLC

313 ITR 187 · 2009 · High Court

144

citing judgments

Where a duty is cast on the payer to deduct and pay tax at source under Section 195, the payee-assessee cannot be levied interest under Section 234B for failure to pay advance tax if the payer defaults on its TDS obligation. This principle may also extend to interest under Section 234C.

Topman Exports v. CIT

342 ITR 49 · 2012 · Supreme Court

121

citing judgments

Export incentives, such as DEPB (Duty Entitlement Pass Book) and advance license benefits, constitute income taxable on an accrual basis under Section 28 of the Income-tax Act. Profit arising on the transfer of DEPB is not eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC.

CIT v. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt. Ltd.

318 ITR 476 · 2009 · High Court

119

citing judgments

Genuine trade advances or amounts advanced for bona fide business transactions, driven by commercial expediency, do not fall within the definition of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Raj Kumar

318 ITR 462 · 2009 · High Court

119

citing judgments

Genuine trade advances made by a company in the ordinary course of business to a shareholder do not fall within the definition of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act.

Judgments citing advance tax

Vineet Thakar, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO(41)(4)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6098/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain,ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. DR)

Section 147Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

applies, the amount of tax sought to be evaded shall be the tax on the total income assessed as reduced by the amount of advance tax, tax deducted at source, tax collected at source and self-assessment tax paid before the issue of notice under section 148." 6.2. Thus ... evaded shall be determined by taking into consideration the amount of tax on the total income assessed as reduced by the amount of advance tax, tax deducted at source, tax collected at source and self- assessment tax paid before the issue of notice u/s 148. The case of the assessee

Drasmith Chandrasekharan, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Kozhikode

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

ITA 132/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR

Section 147Section 148

other addition under the head income from business. Further, the credit for 3 ITA No.132/Coch/2025. Drasmith Chandrasekharan. TDS of Rs.400 was not granted and advance tax of Rs.50,000 was not allowed. 6. Having gone through the above submission, the grievance of the appellant appears to be genuine and correct ... business profit when the net profit rate of 3.75% is adopted. Accordingly, the issue relating to grant of credit of TDS of Rs.400 and advance tax of Rs.50,000 are also restored to the file of the AO for due verification and allow the correct one if it is found

Minaben Hemantsinh Parmar, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 173/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar Ita No. 173 /Ahd/2025 Assessment Year 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Chintan Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purshottam Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 147

instead of adjudicating the appeal on merits, has dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee had not the deposited advance tax. 3. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through records. In this case, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want ... deposit of advance tax on the income assessed by the Assessing Officer. However, the assessee has in this case disputed the very validity of the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Under such circumstances, there was no need to deposit advance tax on such additions. Therefore, the action

Dakai Dahala Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited, Bankura vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Bankura

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

ITA 1787/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

For Appellant: None (withdrawal application filed)For Respondent: Shri Anindya Kumar Bandopadhyay, Addl. CIT

Section 250Section 80P

adjudicated the matter in its right perspective. It was the submission that the Ld. CIT(A) has taken the stand that advance tax is liable to be paid but no advance tax was paid. It was the prayer that if the issues are restored to the file ... rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the present case shows that the Ld. CIT(A) has taken a stand that the advance tax has not been paid. Even though the assessee has filed a letter submitting that the assessee was not required to make any payment of advance

P.K Jain Family Holding Trust, Mumbai vs. ACIT-Circle 31(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated here in above

ITA 671/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 199Section 244A

giving effect to the orders of this Tribunal. 6.1 The Ld.AR submitted that, assessee claimed refund of Rs.1,08,74,200/- comprising of excess advance tax and self assessment tax placed. It is submitted that the return was processed u/s. 143(1) and the refund

Agnee Gas Agency, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1604/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं/ITA No.1604/Ahd/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18\nAgnee Gas Agency\n13, Sukhram Chambers\nKhodiarnagar Char Rasta\nBapunagar\nAhmedabad - 380 024\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AAHFA 7561 M\nThe Income Tax Officer\nबनाम /\nWard-5(3)(3)\nv/s.\nAhmedabad\nअपीलार्थी/ (Appellant)\nप्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent)\nAssessee by:\nHardik Vora office\nRevenue by:\nShri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR\nसुनवाई क

For Appellant: Hardik Vora officeFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 271ASection 44ASection 69A

234A, 234B, 234C & 234D of the Act. The additions/disallowance made by the learned A.O. could not be predicted at the time of payment of advance tax. The learned A.O. should be directed to delete the said interest for alleged failure u/s.234A, 234B, 234C & 234D of the Act. Considering the aforesaid ... 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D of the Act. The additions/disallowance made by the learned A.O. could not be predicted at the time of payment of advance tax. The learned A.O. should be directed to delete the said interest for alleged failure u/s.234A, 234B, 234C & 234D of the Act. Considering the aforesaid

E I P R (India) Private Limited, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Mumbai, Maharashtra

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 351/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Gyaneshwar Kataram, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr. DR)

Section 143(1)Section 37(1)

tax, interest and fee, if any, computed under clause (b) by any tax deducted at source, any tax collected at source, any advance tax paid, any relief allowable under section 89, any relief allowable under an agreement under section 90 or section 90A, or any relief allowable under section

Senniappan Mani, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Tiruppur

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3230/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3230/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Senniappan Mani, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.7, Sivasakthi Nagar, Ward 2(1) 1St Street, K T C Main Road, Tirupur. Parappalayam, Tirupur 641 604. [Pan: Bbnpm 7005C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Senthil Kumar, Advocate Virtual, Erode ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 01.02.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 232 Days In Filing The Appeal. Considering The Period Of Delay & Reasons Stated In Condonation Affidavit Given By The Assessee, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment Was Completed U/S 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Wherein Ao Had Made Addition Of Rs.1,00,98,950/- U/S 69 On Account Of Unexplained Investment & Rs.1,11,66,838/- U/S 69A On Account Of Unexplained Money. Assessee Further Challenged The Order Of Assessment U/S 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Before The Ld.Cit(A) Who Did Not Admit The Appeal Of The Assessee For The Reason That The Assessee Has Not Paid An Amount Equal To The Amount Of Advance Tax Which Was Payable In The Light Of The Mandatory Provision Of Section 249(4)(B) Of The Act. The Assessee Is Now In Appeal Before The Tribunal With The Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Shri. Senthil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT

Section 147Section 207Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)Section 69Section 69A

admit the appeal of the assessee for the reason that the assessee has not paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable in the light of the mandatory provision of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The Assessee is now in appeal before ... Assessment Year 2017-18 and therefore as per section 249(4)(b) the Assessee was required to pay the amount equal to amount of advance tax, which was payable by him. 7. We have given thoughtful consideration to the matter on record and the rival submissions. The relevant section

Manjulaben Jayantibhai Patel, Khambhat vs. The Addlcit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Juridictional AO : the ITO, Ward- 1(3)(1), Petlad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1559/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Arti N. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 147rSection 56(2)(vii)

Assessing Officer. She has demonstrated that the Assessing Officer failed to compute book value of assets, the amount of income tax/TDS/TCS credit or advance tax, and unamortized expenditure etc. The ld. counsel has further submitted that it is not a case of passing for higher value of shares at lower

Mohd. Haroon Abdullah Azmi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 565/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Om Kandalkar, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 208Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

holding as under: “That the Assessee has not filed return of income as well as not paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by and therefore present appeal is not liable to be admitted.” 4. The Assessee, being aggrieved, is in appeal before this ... submitted that as the Assessee’s gross turnover was of Rs.28,63,620/- only, on which the Assessee was not required to pay any advance tax during the assessment year under consideration and therefore the Assessee has not paid any advance tax. Lateron in response to notice

ITO-26(2)(1), Mumbai vs. S D N Company, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2457/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 2457/Mum/2024

For Appellant: Shri Firoze Andhiyarujina, Sr. Advocate & ManeckFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D/R

Section 14Section 56Section 56(2)(viia)

value of the assets in the balance-sheet as reduced by any amount of tax paid as deduction or collection at source or as advance tax payment as reduced by the amount of tax claimed as refund under the Income-tax Act and any amount shown in the balance-sheet ... apart towards depreciation; (iv) any amount representing provision for taxation, other than amount of tax paid as deduction or collection at source or as advance tax payment as reduced by the amount of tax claimed as refund under the Income-tax Act, to the extent of the excess over

Amrrut Shavjjibhai Gada, Mumbai vs. Dycit, Circle-13(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3773/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhailamrrut Shavjjibhai Gada Sejal Glass House, Krishna Kunj Ground Floor, S.V. Road, Malad West, Mumbai 400064 ……………. Appellant Pan: Aadpg5298D V/S

For Appellant: Dr. Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishna Kedia, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 221Section 221(1)Section 250

declared during the course of survey action. As per the assessee, it paid an amount of Rs. 50 lakh as advance tax for the year under consideration. After giving the credit of TDS deducted and tax already paid, the return of income filed by the assessee was processed under section

Parshavnath Associates, Kota vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, both the appeal filed by separate assessee are allowed in terms of the above observations

ITA 1358/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv.&For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT a

Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 69C

such unexplained expenditure which was admitted during the survey proceedings. It is argued that if Department wants to tax surrender income w/s 115BBE then advance tax deposit would be more and the same should be demanded by the department, but that does not happen The argument of the appellant ... found to be relevant for the purpose of assessment. The payment of tax in the form of advance tax or self assessment tax is the choice of the assessee and final determination of income and income tax liability has nothing to do with the manner of payment of taxes

Parshwanath Buildestate Private Limited, Kota vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, both the appeal filed by separate assessee are allowed in terms of the above observations

ITA 1357/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv.&For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT a

Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 69C

Kantar Gdc India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle - 2(1), Hyderabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 804/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 156

settled principle that interest u/s.234A and 234B of the Act arises automatically due to delay in filing of ROI or short payment of advance tax. Therefore, no adjudication is required on this issue. 28. To sum up, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Kantar Gdc India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle - 2(1), Hyderabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 274/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 156

Suneetha Marthala, Kavali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nellore

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

ITA 1195/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.A.Rahim, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

Section 249(4)(b)

file the return of income and therefore, there is no entitlement to exemption and the assessee has to pay the amount equivalent to the advance tax. 3. Learned DR contended that in as much as the assessee was non cooperative with the proceedings all through, the authorities have no option ... proceed ex-parte and the learned CIT(A) is correct from declining to exempt the assessee from paying advance tax under section 249(4)(b) of the Act. 4. We have gone through the record in light of the submissions made on either side. By way of letter dated 18/09/2024

Perumal Pillai Sreenivasan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-9(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3186/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 3186/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Perumalpillai Sreenivasan, Income Tax Officer, Block No.20 Flat 3078, Vs. Non Corp Ward -9(1), Jevvan Bheem Collector Nagar, Chennai. Anna Nagar West, Chennai – 600 101 [Pan: Bbbps-1465-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Abhishek Murali, Ca : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 26.02.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 18.03.2025 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 06.11.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Order Of The Ao/Cit(A) Is Erroneous, Is Contrary To Law, Opposed To Principles Of Natural Justice & The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. Cit(A) Has Failed To Adjudicate The Case: 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Failed To Adjudicate The Appeal On Incorrect Grounds.

For Appellant: 5. The Learned AO/CIT(A) failed to note that the cash deposited into the account

Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

failed to adjudicate the appeal on incorrect grounds. :-2-: ITA. No: 3186/Chny/2024 3. The Learned CIT(A) erred in stating that advance tax should be paid if an appeal is filed, without appreciating that the addition is made in the course of assessment. 4. The Learned CIT(A) failed ... note that the question of advance tax in on the return of income as determined by the Appellant and not by the AO, as there would be impossibility of compliance, if the latter was true. Cash Deposited pertains the Employer of the Appellant: 5. The Learned AO/CIT(A) failed

Owens-Corning (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4352/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 32

This is because a refund of INR 64,70,687 was already issued to the Appellant. However, the Ld. AO erred in not considering advance tax credit of INR 45,00,000 and TDS credit of INR 51,10,673 claimed in the Income tax return while computing tax

Bethel Christian Fellowship Association, Koppal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Koppal

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

ITA 2186/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Veeranna M Murgod, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Netrapal M.S., D.R

Section 115BSection 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 69A

lower authorities u/s 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for default in furnishing return of income and default in payment of advance taxes respectively which is against law and facts of the case. 6. The appellant craves leave to add / alter any of the grounds of appeal