← 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 Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Ananya Finance for Inclusive Growth Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 1186/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT-DR & Shri
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 143(3) of the Act. The AO disallowed certain claims as detailed below and the assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) who decided on each issue as detailed below. ITA Nos.960/Ahd/2016, 1186/Ahd/2016, 2275/Ahd/2017, 2276/Ahd/2017 & 1744//Ahd/2019 Ananya Finance for Inclusive Growth Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT Asst ... Years : 2012-13, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 3 Details of returned income, assessment and appeal before CIT(A) are tabulated below: Particulars A.Y. 2012-13 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 A.Y. 2016-17 Date of filing

Shakuntala Legal Heir of Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Uniya, Narsinghgarh, Distt. Rajgarh vs. ITO Rajgarh, Income Tax Office, Rajgarh (Biaora)

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

ITA 376/IND/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raosmt. Shakuntala (Legal Heir Of Ito, Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Uniya), Rajgarh New Civil Hospital, Vs. Narsinghgarh, Dist. Rajgarh, Biaora (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aacpu6224C Assessee By Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.08.2024 O R D E R

Section 144

legal heir of the deceased assessee along with death certificate of the assessee. The Ld. AR has submitted that after filing the appeal before CIT(A) on 12.08.2015 assessee expired on 26.02.2018, therefore the assessee could not participate in the proceedings before CIT(A) and consequently the ex-parte order ... hand Ld. Departmental Representative has not raised any objection to the condonation of delay in view of the fact that after filing the appeal before CIT(A) the assessee expired. Page 2 of 6 ITANo.376/Ind/2024 Shakuntala L/H of Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Uniya 4. I have considered the submissions

D.K. Constructions, Bhopal vs. Central Circle - 1, Bhopal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 316/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 D.K.Constructions, Pcit (Central), Dk Cottage, Bhopal 24, Carat E8, बनाम/ Near Gujrati Colony,, Vs. Bawadiya Kalan, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaafd7121P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

crore having stamps valuation of Rs. 2.61 crore as ‘stock-in-trade’ [“another property”]. The assessee has already filed an appeal before CIT(A) contesting the addition of Rs. 1,11,00,000/- on the very same premise that the provision of section 56(2)(x) was not applicable

Prakash Shipping Agencies, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 537/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan,A ddl.CIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 147oSection 148Section 37(1)Section 69C

accordingly made disallowance of Rs.8,16,770/- out of the total expenditure claimed by assessee of Rs.40,83,853/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 9. Before CIT(A), the assessee filed documents to prove genuineness of expenditure i.e., ledger copies of salaries and wages, ledger copies of other ... evidence and since the assessee has not deducted TDS, 30% of the expenses amounting to Rs.59,02,322/- was disallowed. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). ITA Nos.532 to 537/CHNY/2024 14. The assessee before CIT(A) claimed that TDS is not applicable as the expenditure relates to freight, transport

Prakash Shipping Agencies, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 535/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan,A ddl.CIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 147oSection 148Section 37(1)Section 69C

accordingly made disallowance of Rs.8,16,770/- out of the total expenditure claimed by assessee of Rs.40,83,853/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 9. Before CIT(A), the assessee filed documents to prove genuineness of expenditure i.e., ledger copies of salaries and wages, ledger copies of other ... evidence and since the assessee has not deducted TDS, 30% of the expenses amounting to Rs.59,02,322/- was disallowed. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). ITA Nos.532 to 537/CHNY/2024 14. The assessee before CIT(A) claimed that TDS is not applicable as the expenditure relates to freight, transport

Prakash Shipping Agencies, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 534/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan,A ddl.CIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 147oSection 148Section 37(1)Section 69C

accordingly made disallowance of Rs.8,16,770/- out of the total expenditure claimed by assessee of Rs.40,83,853/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 9. Before CIT(A), the assessee filed documents to prove genuineness of expenditure i.e., ledger copies of salaries and wages, ledger copies of other ... evidence and since the assessee has not deducted TDS, 30% of the expenses amounting to Rs.59,02,322/- was disallowed. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). ITA Nos.532 to 537/CHNY/2024 14. The assessee before CIT(A) claimed that TDS is not applicable as the expenditure relates to freight, transport

Prakash Shipping Agencies, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 533/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan,A ddl.CIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 147oSection 148Section 37(1)Section 69C

accordingly made disallowance of Rs.8,16,770/- out of the total expenditure claimed by assessee of Rs.40,83,853/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 9. Before CIT(A), the assessee filed documents to prove genuineness of expenditure i.e., ledger copies of salaries and wages, ledger copies of other ... evidence and since the assessee has not deducted TDS, 30% of the expenses amounting to Rs.59,02,322/- was disallowed. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). ITA Nos.532 to 537/CHNY/2024 14. The assessee before CIT(A) claimed that TDS is not applicable as the expenditure relates to freight, transport

Prakash Shipping Agencies, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 532/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan,A ddl.CIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 147oSection 148Section 37(1)Section 69C

accordingly made disallowance of Rs.8,16,770/- out of the total expenditure claimed by assessee of Rs.40,83,853/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 9. Before CIT(A), the assessee filed documents to prove genuineness of expenditure i.e., ledger copies of salaries and wages, ledger copies of other ... evidence and since the assessee has not deducted TDS, 30% of the expenses amounting to Rs.59,02,322/- was disallowed. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). ITA Nos.532 to 537/CHNY/2024 14. The assessee before CIT(A) claimed that TDS is not applicable as the expenditure relates to freight, transport

Idfc First Bank Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Range Corporate Circle-2(2), Chennai

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

ITA 221/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

return, the remaining amount of Rs.49.88 crores is hereby disallowed under section 14A of Income Tax Act.” Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. Before the CIT(A) the assessee has taken various pleas, including not recording of satisfaction, explanation of own funds of the assessee bank being

Smt. Hiraben Dhanji Valji Velani Foundation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Mumbai

ITA 3320/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2020-21
Section 143(1)Section 246A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "K (SMC)" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The JCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Rajeshkumar Shantilal Sanghvi, Ahmedabad

ITA 1139/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)

explain why such addition should not be made but the assessee did not provide any explanations but 4. The assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A), however, deleted the addition, treating the land as agricultural land and exempt from capital gains tax under Section 2(14)(iii). Therefore, the Revenue

Chheda Specialities Foods Private Limited, Kandivali West, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 12 (1)-4, Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate

ITA 2493/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri H M Bhatt
Section 143(3)

Officer made in addition of INR 96,08,043/-. (5,80,92,696 – 4,84,84,653). 5. Being aggrieved the Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A). In the written submission, dated 06/01/2023, filed before the CIT(A) it was contending on behalf of the Appellant as under :- “That appellant

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. S. Deepalakshmi, Panruti

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 991/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:991/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Ms. S. Deepalakshmi, Income Tax, Vs. No.190, Annai Indira Gandhi Central Circle -2(2), Salai, Chennai. Panruti – 607 108. Pan: Awtpd 8317Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Smt. R. Anita, Addl. Cit ""यथ"क" ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Chennai - 19 Dated 13.02.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cuddalore Circle, Cuddalore For The Assessment Year 2016-17 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 31.12.2018. 2. The Sole Issue In This Appeal Of Revenue Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Deleting The Penalty Levied By Ao U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.51,18,200/- For The Reason That There Is No Specific Charge Framed While Initiating Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act I.E., Whether Assessee Has Concealed The Particulars Of Income Or Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

For Appellant: Smt. R. Anita, Addl. CITFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

levied penalty of Rs.51,80,200/- being 100% of the tax on the alleged concealed trading income. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. Before CIT(A), the assessee made submission that the levy of penalty is invalid as the AO has not specified in the notice whether

Iqvia Rds(India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1237/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 250Section 43BSection 93

against the principle of on natural justice 1.1 The order dated 09 May 2024 passed by the Additional/ Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) — 2 ['CIT(A)'] under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ['Act'] pursuant to the appeal filed against the Intimation dated 13 November 2022 issued ... against the principles of natural justice. 2 Not condoning the delay in filing appeal before CIT(A) against Intimation order 2.1 The CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing appeal before CIT(A) against Intimation order passed under section 143(1) of the Act. 3 Erroneous

Iqvia Rds(India) Private Limited(Successor of Cenduit India Services Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Banglaore

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

ITA 1236/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 250Section 43BSection 93

against the principle of on natural justice 1.1 The order dated 09 May 2024 passed by the Additional/ Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) — 2 ['CIT(A)'] under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ['Act'] pursuant to the appeal filed against the Intimation dated 13 November 2022 issued ... against the principles of natural justice. 2 Not condoning the delay in filing appeal before CIT(A) against Intimation order 2.1 The CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing appeal before CIT(A) against Intimation order passed under section 143(1) of the Act. 3 Erroneous

Jitendra Salunke, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -42(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3365/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Poojan MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 250Section 270ASection 272A(1)(d)

order dated 05.01.2024, penalty of Rs. 14,282/- was imposed u/s 270A of the Act. Aggrieved with this order, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A)/NFAC on 08.02.2024. Since, no compliance was made to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), the penalty order

Jitendra Salunke, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-42(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3362/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Poojan MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 250Section 270ASection 272A(1)(d)

order dated 05.01.2024, penalty of Rs. 14,282/- was imposed u/s 270A of the Act. Aggrieved with this order, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A)/NFAC on 08.02.2024. Since, no compliance was made to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), the penalty order

Balasa Rangaiah Setty Annapurna, Tumkur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tumkur

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

ITA 1323/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavappeal Nos. & Order Under Din No. Of Days Delay Assessment Year Section In Filing Appeal Before Cit(A) 271(1)(C) Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 418 2016-17 25/1064985679(1) 147/143(3) Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 579 2016-17 25/1064985395(1) 271(1)(C) Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- Minor Delay 2015-16 25/1064987296(1) Condoned

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appeal Nos. and Order under DIN No. of days delay Assessment Year section in filing appeal before CIT(A) 271(1)(c) ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 418 2016-17 25/1064985679(1) 147/143(3) ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 579 2016-17 25/1064985395(1) 271(1)(c) ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- Minor delay ... penalty to the wrong email ID due to which the assessee was not aware of filing of appeals. Similarly, for non- prosecution of appeal before CIT(A) for AY-2015-16, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the notices of hearing were served to the wrong email

Balasa Rangaiah Setty Annapurna, Tumkur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tumkur

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

ITA 1322/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavappeal Nos. & Order Under Din No. Of Days Delay Assessment Year Section In Filing Appeal Before Cit(A) 271(1)(C) Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 418 2016-17 25/1064985679(1) 147/143(3) Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 579 2016-17 25/1064985395(1) 271(1)(C) Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- Minor Delay 2015-16 25/1064987296(1) Condoned

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appeal Nos. and Order under DIN No. of days delay Assessment Year section in filing appeal before CIT(A) 271(1)(c) ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 418 2016-17 25/1064985679(1) 147/143(3) ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 579 2016-17 25/1064985395(1) 271(1)(c) ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- Minor delay ... penalty to the wrong email ID due to which the assessee was not aware of filing of appeals. Similarly, for non- prosecution of appeal before CIT(A) for AY-2015-16, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the notices of hearing were served to the wrong email

Balasa Rangaiah Setty Annapurna, Tumkur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tumkur

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

ITA 1311/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavappeal Nos. & Order Under Din No. Of Days Delay Assessment Year Section In Filing Appeal Before Cit(A) 271(1)(C) Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 418 2016-17 25/1064985679(1) 147/143(3) Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 579 2016-17 25/1064985395(1) 271(1)(C) Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- Minor Delay 2015-16 25/1064987296(1) Condoned

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appeal Nos. and Order under DIN No. of days delay Assessment Year section in filing appeal before CIT(A) 271(1)(c) ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 418 2016-17 25/1064985679(1) 147/143(3) ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 579 2016-17 25/1064985395(1) 271(1)(c) ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- Minor delay ... penalty to the wrong email ID due to which the assessee was not aware of filing of appeals. Similarly, for non- prosecution of appeal before CIT(A) for AY-2015-16, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the notices of hearing were served to the wrong email