← 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)

The Visnagar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd (Under Liquidation), Mehsana vs. The ACIT, Circle-Gandhinagar (Previously DCIT, Patan Circle, Patan), Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1414/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.738, 1414 & 1415/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : (2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) The Visnagar Nagarik Sahakari The Assistant Commissioner Bank Ltd.,(Under Liquidation) बनाम Of Income Tax, / Market Yard, Circle Gandhinagar. V/S. Visnagar, (Previously Dcit, Mehsana-384315, Patan Circle, Patan) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaft8764C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A P Nanavaty, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”], All Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Arising From The Assessments Framed By The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle, Patan [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Assessing Officer Or Ao”] Under Section 143(3) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri A P Nanavaty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(4)

also directed initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. 8. For A.Y. 2013-14 the assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The appeal before CIT(A) was delayed by more than 6 months. The ITA Nos.738,1414 &1415/Ahd/2025 The Visnagar Nagrik Sahakari Bank

Jagdamba Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, A/P- Devibhoyre Tal-Parner vs. ITO Ward 2 Ahmednagar, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 1650/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1650/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Jagdamba Gramin Bigarsheti Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Ahmednagar. Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, A/P- Devibhoyre, Tal- Parner, Parner, Ahmednagar- 414302. Pan : Aabtj0944P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prasad R. Kulkarni Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar : Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Cooperative Society Registered Under Maharashtra State Co-Operative Societies Act. As Per Information Available With The Department The Assessee Had Deposited Cash Of Rs.1,25,61,000/- In Banks & Also Made Time Deposits Of Rs.74,31,120/-, However No Return Of Income Was Furnished By The Assessee Society.

For Appellant: Shri Prasad R. Kulkarni
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Assessing Officer based on the information available on record completed the assessment making addition of Rs.1,24,97,234/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) but again failed to respond to the notices of hearing and furnish the requisite details in respect of its grounds of appeal. Before

Sh. Darshan Singh, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Alwar

Appeal is allowed on the only legal ground raised before us by Ld

ITA 742/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

appellant-applicant has submitted that the assessee had engaged Shri Abhinav Gupta, Chartered Accountant (C.A.) for the purpose of filing of appeal before CIT(A), but, the impugned order passed in the quantum proceeding could not come to his notice. Ld. AR has further submitted that subsequently

Bapa Bajrangdas Recidanciy Velfer Association, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 662/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250

Association of Persons (AOP) instead of a charitable trust, and taxed the full income without allowing any exemption. 4. the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) against the aforesaid intimation order. There was a delay in filing of appeal by the assessee before CIT(Appeals), and the contention ... trustess were unaware of the processing of return of income by CPC and the consequent demand, there was a delay in filing of appeal before CIT(Appeals). Upon discovering the demand, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(Appeals) on 15.08.2024, which was after the statutory time-line of filing

Bapa Bajrangdas Recidanciy Velfer Association, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 7(2)1, Ahmedabad

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 661/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250

Association of Persons (AOP) instead of a charitable trust, and taxed the full income without allowing any exemption. 4. the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) against the aforesaid intimation order. There was a delay in filing of appeal by the assessee before CIT(Appeals), and the contention ... trustess were unaware of the processing of return of income by CPC and the consequent demand, there was a delay in filing of appeal before CIT(Appeals). Upon discovering the demand, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(Appeals) on 15.08.2024, which was after the statutory time-line of filing

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. Massimo Enterprise, Surat

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and additional ground raised by the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 1111/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1107 & 1108/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Jignesh Mahesh Amin बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- 418, Royal Trading Tower, Nr. Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Ratan Cinema, Salabatpura, Surat- Bhawan, Majura Gate, 395 003 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpa 2349 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1109/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Anupa Jignesh Amin बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- B-19, Ashirwad Residency Near Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor, Aayakar China Gate, City Light, Surat-395 Bhawan, Majura Gate, 017 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acspa 6502 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1111/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Massimo Enterprise बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- Fp No.139, Orleaans, Near Sosyo Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Circle, Udhna Magdalla Road, Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 007 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aavfm 0143 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 250Section 68

being 0.5% of the above unsecured loan towards unaccounted commission expense. 4.1 Aggrieved by the addition made in assessment order, assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The assessee challenged validity of reopening u/s 147 of the Act as well as merits of the additions. It was submitted before him that

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. Anupa Jignesh Amin, Surat

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and additional ground raised by the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 1109/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1107 & 1108/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Jignesh Mahesh Amin बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- 418, Royal Trading Tower, Nr. Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Ratan Cinema, Salabatpura, Surat- Bhawan, Majura Gate, 395 003 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpa 2349 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1109/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Anupa Jignesh Amin बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- B-19, Ashirwad Residency Near Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor, Aayakar China Gate, City Light, Surat-395 Bhawan, Majura Gate, 017 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acspa 6502 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1111/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Massimo Enterprise बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- Fp No.139, Orleaans, Near Sosyo Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Circle, Udhna Magdalla Road, Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 007 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aavfm 0143 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 250Section 68

being 0.5% of the above unsecured loan towards unaccounted commission expense. 4.1 Aggrieved by the addition made in assessment order, assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The assessee challenged validity of reopening u/s 147 of the Act as well as merits of the additions. It was submitted before him that

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. Jignesh Mahesh Amin, Surat

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and additional ground raised by the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 1108/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1107 & 1108/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Jignesh Mahesh Amin बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- 418, Royal Trading Tower, Nr. Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Ratan Cinema, Salabatpura, Surat- Bhawan, Majura Gate, 395 003 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpa 2349 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1109/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Anupa Jignesh Amin बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- B-19, Ashirwad Residency Near Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor, Aayakar China Gate, City Light, Surat-395 Bhawan, Majura Gate, 017 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acspa 6502 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1111/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Massimo Enterprise बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- Fp No.139, Orleaans, Near Sosyo Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Circle, Udhna Magdalla Road, Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 007 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aavfm 0143 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 250Section 68

being 0.5% of the above unsecured loan towards unaccounted commission expense. 4.1 Aggrieved by the addition made in assessment order, assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The assessee challenged validity of reopening u/s 147 of the Act as well as merits of the additions. It was submitted before him that

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. Jignesh Mahesh Amin, Surat

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and additional ground raised by the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 1107/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1107 & 1108/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Jignesh Mahesh Amin बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- 418, Royal Trading Tower, Nr. Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Ratan Cinema, Salabatpura, Surat- Bhawan, Majura Gate, 395 003 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpa 2349 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1109/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Anupa Jignesh Amin बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- B-19, Ashirwad Residency Near Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor, Aayakar China Gate, City Light, Surat-395 Bhawan, Majura Gate, 017 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acspa 6502 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1111/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Massimo Enterprise बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- Fp No.139, Orleaans, Near Sosyo Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Circle, Udhna Magdalla Road, Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 007 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aavfm 0143 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 250Section 68

being 0.5% of the above unsecured loan towards unaccounted commission expense. 4.1 Aggrieved by the addition made in assessment order, assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The assessee challenged validity of reopening u/s 147 of the Act as well as merits of the additions. It was submitted before him that

Akhilesh Kumar Patel, Shahdol vs. Income Tax Officer Dhar, Dhar

ITA 627/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 147

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Mohammad Ali, Burdwan vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Durgapur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1075/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Cit(A) Through Online & The Appeal Hearing Notice Not Issued In Registered E-Mail. That In The Months Of March & April, 2025 I Have Received Many Message From Department To Avail Vsvs, Then I Personally Appeared Before The A.O. Immediately & The A.O. Intimated Me That The Cit(A) Has Been Passed The Appellate Order. I

Section 250

much before. The appeal has been filed on today, thereby 365 days of delay. 2. That Sri Paresh Mondal, A/R has filed the appeal before CIT(A) through online and the appeal hearing notice not issued in registered e-mail. That in the months of March and April

Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Satna vs. Asst. Commissioner of Incometax Circle, Satna

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

ITA 156/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Kumar Agarwal V. Acit Circle Satna Blooms Campus, Nh-75, Panna Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Road, Satna (Mp)-485001. Lines, Satna, Mp-485001. Tan/Pan:Ackpa2596H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sanjay Mishra, Adv Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 19 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 08 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

pursuance of and in conformity with the Statement of Facts and the Grounds of Appeal as set forth herein below: 1. That appeal before CIT(A) had become infructuous due to VSVS Compliance 1.1 The Appellant respectfully submits that during the pendency of appeal before the CIT(A), he opted

Arun Kumar Gupta, Kanpur vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(2), Surat

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

ITA 9/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.9/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Hybrid Hearing) Arun Kumar Gupta Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Flat No.316, Srishti Suyraj Income-Tax, Circle-3(2), Surat, 4Th Vs. Apartment, G.T. Road, Floor, Room No.410, Aayakar Ramadevi, Kanpur-208 007 Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afapg 2389 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 127Section 14Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

Rs.81,25,000/- u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 14.12.2019. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) wherein he had raised fifteen grounds of appeal including various jurisdictional and legal grounds on the issue of reopening u/s 147 by issue ... taxable income and hence no return of income was filed. The AO passed order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. In the appeal before CIT(A), the appellant had filed written submission and additional evidence. The statement of facts, grounds of appeal and submission of the appellant have been

Shiven Ceramic LLP, Morbi vs. ITO, National E Assessment, Delhi

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

ITA 392/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.392/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19) M/S Shiven Ceramic Llp, बनाम Income Tax Officer National E-Assessment Centre, /Vs. 604/P5, 642/P1, Village Delhi Ghnutu, Lakhdhirpur Nr. Royal Touch Vitrified, Morbi-360 004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adifs 8442 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Darshit Ranpara, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(3)

stated that cost of Rs.2000/- may be imposed on the assessee, as the assessee has been negligent in pursuing the appeal before CIT(A). 9. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on behalf of the assessee. We find that Ld. CIT

Mahammad Aftab Kattilvalappil, Thalassery vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Kozhikode

ITA 543/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: None
Section 144Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

fails to file relevant documents/details/submission, the CIT(A) would be at liberty to adjudicate the grounds raised by the Assessee in appeal before CIT(A) on the basis of material on record. Thus, Ground No.7 raised by the Assessee is allowed. Since we have restored the issues back

Shri Pramodbhai Bhikubhai Desai, Valsad vs. ITO, Ward 7, Vapi

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

ITA 143/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.143/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Pramodbhai Bhikhubhai Desai, Vs. The Ito, Desaiwad, Palsana, Udwada Rs Ward – 7, Udwada, Valsad - 396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Atppd1828D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/08/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 250

determined at Rs.4,64,000/- as against returned income of Rs.1,07,667/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the grounds raised by the appellant on validity of the re- opening of assessment by issue of notice

Vithalbhai Harjibhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward3(2)(4), Surat

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

ITA 138/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.138/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Vithalbhai Harjibhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, 101-102, Harihari Society, Katargam Ward – 3(2)(4), Surat - 395004 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abcpp0940K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Kamlesh Bhatt, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/08/2025

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) also initiated by the AO. 7. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued 5 notices fixing the hearing on 31.12.2020, 11.05.2023, 12.07.2023, 24.04.2024 and 11.06.2024, but there was non-compliance on the part

Saquib Ahmed, Pipariya vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bhopal

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 402/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263

dismissed the appeal on grounds of limitation, again without examining the merits. In the instant case assessee by filing instant appeal while his appeal before CIT(A) against the consequential assessment order is pending before CIT(A) is also trying to take a chance and to test waters ... months elapsed between the PCIT's revisional order and the AO's consequential order, and yet the assessee took no action. Even the appeal before CIT(A) was filed over two years later. This lack of vigilance was held fatal to the assessee's case. The Tribunal refused to condone

Rajesh Singh Negi, Nanital vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3)(1) Nanital, Nanital

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 92/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Rajesh Singh Negi, Ward-2(3)(1), House No.50, Vs. Nanital. Jind State, Ward No.3, Nainital, Uttarakhand-263136 Pan-Aakpn3462D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Saurabh Gupta, Ca Department By Shri Aman Pal Singh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/08/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘The Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short) In Appeal No. Nfac/2016-17/10008911 Dated 13.08.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, From The Perusal Of The Appellate Order, It Is Seen That The Appeal Is Filed Delayed By 193 Days, For Which Delay Condonation Petition Along With An Affidavit Of Assessee Is Filed. In The Said Petition It Is Stated That The Assessee Was Under Bonafide Rajesh Singh Negi Vs. Ito Impression That The Counsel Of The Assessee Who Was Handling The Appeal Was Taken Care Of The Appellate Proceedings. However, Counsel Had Not Communicated The Status Of The Appeal, Therefore & When The Assessee Pursued Him, It Has Come To The Knowledge That The Appeal Was Already Dismissed Ex-Parte By Ld. Cit(A). Thus, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal Had Occurred. It Was Further Submitted That The Delay Was Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate & Solely Due To The Failure On The Part Of The Counsel To Communicate The Status & Out Come Of The Appeal Before Cit(A) In Timely Manner, Therefore, The Assessee Requested For Condonation Of Delay. In This Regard Reliance Is Also Placed In The Case Of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 Scc 123 (Sc) & Collector Of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 Itr 471 (Sc).

deliberate and solely due to the failure on the part of the Counsel to communicate the status and out come of the appeal before CIT(A) in timely manner, therefore, the assessee requested for condonation of delay. In this regard reliance is also placed in the case of N. Balakrishnan

Sitaram Badri Narain Mawawale, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 412/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

appeal has been filed by assessee firm against the appeal order dated 27-01-2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in appeal No. CIT(A), Jaipur- 1/10896/2019-20. The assessee firm has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. (a) That on the facts and in the circumstances ... assessee u/s 68 of the Act and taxed it @ 60% invoking provisions of section 115BBE. Order of CIT (A) The assessee firm filed appeal before CIT(A) against said assessment order and in course of hearing filed written submissions which reproduced in appeal order of CIT(A). The Ld. CIT

appeal before CIT(A) — 1,827 case laws | BharatTax