← All Phrases

“appeal before CIT(A)”

AppealsSection 246ASection 246A1,827 judgments

The decision most relied on for appeal before CIT(A) is CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320), cited in 2,267 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on appeal before CIT(A)

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another
118 ITR 461 · 1997 · Supreme Court
1,656
citing judgments

Appealing a tax assessment requires more than just filing the appeal; it involves actively pursuing it. The assessee must effectively engage with the appellate process.

Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT
187 ITR 688 · 1991 · Supreme Court
1,372
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) possesses co-terminus powers with the Assessing Officer and can direct the Assessing Officer to perform actions he failed to do, but cannot introduce a new source of income in the assessment. The appellate assessment must be confined to the items of income that were the subject matter of the original assessment.

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders
349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court
956
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.

CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
297 CTR 614 · 2017 · High Court
659
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution or default in appearance. Under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, the CIT(A) must decide the appeal on its merits, even in an ex parte proceeding.

Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT
199 ITR 351 · 1993 · High Court
441
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can consider additional grounds for deduction, even if not originally claimed before the Assessing Officer or Appellate Assistant Commissioner, provided the facts are not disputed and it pertains to a legal claim for correct tax liability. This is because the purpose of an appeal is to ascertain the correct tax liability.

CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate
53 ITR 225 · 1964 · Supreme Court
359
citing judgments

The Commissioner (Appeals) holds plenary powers when disposing of an appeal, with their scope being coterminous with the Assessing Officer. This allows the CIT(A) to exercise all powers of the AO, including admitting additional evidence and redetermining income.

New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT
296 ITR 495 · 2008 · High Court
351
citing judgments

The High Court can return a reference unanswered if the assessee fails to appear or provide assistance. This illustrates the broader principle that appellate authorities have inherent power to dismiss appeals for non-prosecution when a party does not effectively pursue their case.

Judgments citing appeal before CIT(A)

Mithlesh Suhalka, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Udaipur

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 103/JODH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Brij Lal Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

under section 143(3)/254/147/vide order dated 30/3/2015, in the hands of the assessee in set aside proceeding also, the assessee is in appeal before CIT(A) and during the course physical hearing the A/R of the assessee has filed the WS (PB45-53) and details. Thereafter the appeal

General Industrial Corporation, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 17(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3785/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

adjournment. The Ld.AR submits that assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed if one more opportunity to contest the appeal before CIT(A) is allowed. He undertook on behalf of assessee to be vigilant in future in making timely compliances. The partner of the firm ... considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. We find that while filing appeal before CIT(A), in form 35, the assessee provided email address ‘ashsihpatel110@yahoo’ for the purpose of notices for communication by CIT(A). However, the Ld.CIT

National Welfare Foundation, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption Ward 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3271/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjunwala, Ld. C.AFor Respondent: Shri Letaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr. A.R
Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 3Section 5

peruse the relevant material based on record. First of all the Assessee has explained the reason for delay in filing of the first appeal before CIT(A) that earlier CA of the Assessee had filed rectification application u/154 before the AO/CPC, then Assessee was under bonafide belief that the adjustment

Vikram Kumar Bajaj, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-32, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1263/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahayassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 124Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Assessing Officer. 7. Thereafter, aggrieved by the reassessment order passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A). 8. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Therefore the assessee is in appeal before your Honours. Approval obtained u/s 153D

Dwarkesh & Co., Surat vs. ITO, Ward- 2(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 61/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.61/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) Dwarkesh & Co. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(1), बनाम/ 19, Radheyshyam Society, Surat, Aayakar Bhawan, Surat-395 Vs. Opp. Gopinath Complex, 001 Mota Varachha, Surat- 394 101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aagfd 7120 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 145(1)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee submitted that during the filing of appeal before CIT(A), his consultant had clearly mentioned the Email ID: ca.mihirthakkar@gmail.com for communication, however, during appellate proceedings before CIT(A), all notices for hearing were issued ... used for any correspondence for long time. The appellant was unaware of dismissal of ITA No.61/Srt/2025 A.Y 14-15 Dwarkesh & Co. appeal by CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. Besides, assessee was not informed about the aforesaid hearing notices and order of CIT(A) by his old consultant due to which

Sunilkumar Ichhubhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(2)(4), Surat

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

ITA 52/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitrta Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.52/Srt/2025

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

condonation of delay in filing of appeal before this Tribunal. In the affidavit, it has been stated that during the filing of appeal before CIT(A), his consultant had clearly mentioned the Email ID: jagashethca1@gmail.com for communication of hearing notices since assessee is not conversant with online mode of income ... filing of return of income only and was not used for any correspondence for long time. The assessee was unaware of dismissal of appeal by CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. Besides, assessee was also not informed about the aforesaid hearing notices and order of CIT(A) by his previous consultant

Shree Shildha Vibhag Jungle Kamdar Sahakari Mandli Ltd, Valsad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Valsad

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

ITA 461/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.461/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Hybrid Hearing) Shree Shildha Vibhag Jungle Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Kamdar Sahakari Mandli Ward-4, Valsad Vs. At & Post Nana Pondha, Kaprada Road, Valsad-396 065 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaas 6185 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Respondent By Shri Abhishek Gautam, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 23/09/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025

Section 144Section 250

filed an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee submitted that during the filing of appeal before CIT(A), his consultant had clearly mentioned the email ID of his counsel (i.e., camitish@gmail.com) in the Form No. 35 and that he specifically opted ... determining total income of the assessee at Rs.96,27,970/-. 7. Aggrieved by the addition made by AO, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). In appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) issued several notices of hearing. The assessee did not file any written submission in response to the above notices. Thereafter

Milanben Narendra Choksi, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(3), Surat

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

ITA 404/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitrta Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.404/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Milanben Narendra Choksi Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), बनाम/ Mu, Wd.No.3/628, Navapura Surat, Room No.118, First Floor, Vs. Karva Road, Surat-395 003 Aaykar Bhawan, Near Majura Gate, Opp. Civil Hospital, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aappc 8557 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R. Sheth, Advocate राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 19/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145Section 250

rejecting the regularly maintained and audited books of account of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the addition made by the AO, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued six notices fixing the hearings on 18.01.2021, 08.02.2022, 10.08.2023, 26.06.2024, 11.11.2024 and 16.12.2024. However, there was no response from

Hiren Ashokkumar Bardoliya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(2), Surat

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

ITA 27/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.27/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Hiren Ashokkumar Bardoliya Income Tax Officer Ward-2(2)(2), बनाम/ Flat No.L/801, Rameshwaram Surat, Room No. 625, 6Th Floor, Vs. Green Opp. D-Mart, Bamroli, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Althan Road, Surat- 395 007 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Apxpb 4857 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 22/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 69C

u/s.69C of the Act and the same was taxed u/s.115BBEE of the Act @ 60%. Aggrieved by the addition made by AO, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 5. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee for the first time, submitted that he was doing the business activities and made payments

Shri Vikramsinh Thakorbhai Ravat, Valsad vs. ACIT Valsad Circle, Valsad

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

ITA 206/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.206/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Vikramsinh Thakorbhai Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Ravat Income-Tax, Circle-Valsad, 208 Vs. 117/Ravat Falia/ Bhutsar/ Palak Arcade, Shantinagar, Tithal Taluka/ Dist. Valsad-396 005 Road, Valsad-396 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Alcpr 4584 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 22/07/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

total income of the assessee was determined at Rs.12,49,830/-. 5. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). On perusal of the submissions furnished by the assessee, CIT(A) observed that the assessee had submitted details of the developmental expenses incurred

Kalamandir Jewellers Limited, Surat vs. Assessing Officer NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 152/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.152/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Kalamandir Jewellers Ltd. National Faceless Assessment बनाम/ Plot No.124, Kalamandir Centre, Delhi Vs. House, Ghod Dod Road, Near Indoor Stadium Athwa, Surat- 395 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadck 6700 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 251(1)Section 69

determined at Rs.35,41,31,782/- as against Rs.26,38,56,942/-. Aggrieved by the addition made by the AO, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). ITA No.152/Srt/2025 A.Y 17-18 Kalamandir Jewellers Ltd. 4. The CIT(A) issued notices of hearing and after considering the reply of assessee

Income Tax Officer, Surat vs. Saffron Green International Private Limited, Surat

In the result, appeal of revenue is partly allowed

ITA 958/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.958/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 (Hybrid Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Saffron Green International Pvt. बनाम/ 2(1)(3), Surat, Room No.221, Ltd. Shop No.3008, Shree Mahavir Vs. 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Textiles Puna Kumbhariya Road, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 Surat-395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawcs 3137 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Deven K. Kapadia, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Aashish Pophare, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act’) Dated 16.07.2024 By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short, ‘The Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S. 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act On 21.03.2023. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: “I. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Restricting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Of Rs.5,70,70,621/- On Account Of 100% Bogus Purchase To 0.25% Of The Bogus Purchases & Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Ignoring The Facts That These Purchases Are Sham Transactions Fabricated Through Bogus Paper Concerns Of M/S. Savitri Trading Company & Mohammed Javed Mohammed Jabir Momin Which Were Engaged In Providing Accommodation Entries.

Section 147Section 250Section 250(2)

total income was determined at Rs.5,86,19,871/-. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed by AO, assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). In the appellate proceedings, the assessee filed written submission and additional evidences. The same were forwarded to the AO and a remand report was called

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat vs. Surendran Nanoo, Kerala

ITA 821/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.821/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(2)Section 68

25/SRT/2024 A.Y 17-18 Surendran Nanoo 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, it was observed by CIT(A) that there was no fresh credit introduced in the books of account

Labhu Balubhai Ghevariya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(4), Surat

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

ITA 809/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shridinesh Mohan Sinha& Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.809/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 (Hybrid Hearing) Labhu Balubhai Ghevariya Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 3, Ila Park Society Opp. Ward—3(2)(4), Surat Aayakar Vs. Katargam Police Station, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 Katargam, Surat-395004 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Akdpp0165A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Appellant By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Respondent By Shriajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54BSection 69

unexplained investment, thereby assessing total income of the assessee at Rs.99,64,865/-. 3. Aggrieved by the addition made by AO, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). In appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) issued several notices of hearing. The assessee did not file any written submission nor evidence nor sought ... statement, etc. Apart from this, Ld. AR also filed an affidavit of the assessee wherein it is stated that during the filing of appeal before CIT(A), they had clearly mentioned email Id : ca.mihirthakkar@gmail.com for communication of hearing notices in Form 35, however, all the hearing notices u/s.250

International Creations Private Limited, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 742/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 194Section 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

International Creations Pvt. Ltd. 6. Aggrieved by the order of AO u/s.201(1) rws 201(1A) of the Act, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) after hearing the Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee and on perusing the submissions made by him observed that the provision

Milan Amrutlal Shah, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 682/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.682/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 (Hybrid Hearing) Milan Amruitlal Shah Income Tax Officer Ward-1(2)(1), बनाम/ Plot No.4119, Road No.41, Surat, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Vs. Gidc, Road Rs, Surat- 394 Gate, Surat-395 001 230 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaopn 6144 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(X)Section 56(2)(x)

Rs.63,73,702/-, being Rs.6,37,370/- was added to the total income. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). 4. Before CIT(A), assessee had filed written submission which is reproduced at para-3.1 of the appellate order. He submitted that the impugned property

Basantilal Tarba, Rajasthan vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-3(1)(2), Surat

In the result, the ground of appeal raised in this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 512/SRT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.512/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Bansntilal Tarba Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(2), बनाम/ 429/1023, Sundarnagar, Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Vs. Ahimsa Circle, Bhilwara, Surat-395 001 Rajasthan- 311 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afipt 1037 P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ca राज" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing 23/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the addition made by AO in his assessment order, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) on 06.11.2019, which was late by 693 days. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal. Subsequently ... minimum penalty of Rs.24,05,63,853/- vide order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 30.05.2018. Aggrieved by the order of AO assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) which was late by 495 days. The CIT(A) issued various notices which is mentioned at para-5 of the appellate order

Vimalkumar Vajubhai Katrodiya, Surat vs. ACIT Circle 2(2), Surat

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

ITA 1266/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1266/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 (Hybrid Hearing) Vimalkumar Vajubhai Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Katrodiya Income-Tax,Circle-2(2), Surat, Vs. 90, Mamta Park Society, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate- Spinning Mill Kapodara, 395 001 Varachha Road, Surat-395 006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aqipk 2458 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68

Rs.10,51,92,975/- as against returned income of Rs.19,28,660/-. Aggrieved by the addition made by the AO, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) issued as many as eight notices; however, there was no compliance to any notices. The CIT(A) had directed compliance

Shreyansh Anilkumar Shah, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward - 5, Navsari

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

ITA 727/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.727/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 (Hybrid Hearing) Shreyansh Anilkumar Shah Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, बनाम/ 504, Rushabh Residency, Navsari, Income T Ax Office, Vs. Maneklal Road, Near Charpool, Awabaug, Navsari-396 Telephone Exchange, Navsari- 445 396 445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aiqps 6441 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 22/07/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act’) Dated 26.07.2023 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeal [In Short, The ‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 27.10.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee For The Appeal Are As Under: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Reopening Assessment U/S.147 By Issuing Notice U/S.148 Of The It Act, 1961. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao In Making Addition Of Rs.32,53,637/- U/S 68 Of The Act On Account Of Alleged Unexplained Cash Credits.

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 226(3)Section 250Section 68

Rs.34,04,657/- after making aforementioned additions to his returned income. 5. Aggrieved by the addition made in assessment order, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) observed that the assessee was given ample opportunity to substantiate the source of cash deposits and credit entries in his various

Jaipur Sahakari Kraya Vikraya Samiti, Jaipur vs. I.T.O. Ward 5(2), Jaipur

ITA 991/JPR/2025[A.Y. 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2025

Bench: The Registry On 30-06-2025. By Way Of First Mentioned Appeal, Assessee Has Challenged Order Dated 18-03-2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2018-19, Whereby Appeal Filed By Assessee Challenging The Assessment Order Dated 31-03-2021 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Has Been Dismissed, As Not 2

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80P

give grounds for condonation of delay in Column No.15 thereof. No provision for filing of application seeking condonation of delay as regards appeal before CIT(A) has been brought to our notice. Even otherwise, abovesaid provision does not contain any such requirement. 6 ITANO. 990 & 991/JPR/2025 JAIPUR SAHAKARI KRAYA VIKARAYA