← All Phrases

“first appeal”

AppealsSection 246ASection 246A5,395 judgments

The decision most relied on for first appeal is CIT v. Union Tyres (240 ITR 556), cited in 135 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on first appeal

CIT v. Union Tyres
240 ITR 556 · 1999 · High Court
135
citing judgments

The first appellate authority, the Commissioner (Appeals), cannot enhance an assessment by considering a new scope or source of income that was not part of the original assessment proceedings. Its power to enhance under Section 251(1)(a) is restricted to what was originally assessed.

Sanjay Sawhney v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax
116 Taxmann.com 701 · 2020 · High Court
87
citing judgments

Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules allows a respondent to defend a favourable order of the CIT(A) by raising grounds decided against them, even without filing an appeal or cross-objection. Such issues can be raised orally and for the first time before the Tribunal.

Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
156 ITR 54 · 1985 · High Court
59
citing judgments

An appellate authority can admit and adjudicate a new legal ground for the first time, even if not raised in earlier appellate proceedings, provided its omission was neither willful nor unreasonable.

Kiran Singh & Ors. v. Chaman Paswan & Ors.
1 SCR 117 · 1955 · Supreme Court
55
citing judgments

A decree or proceeding initiated by an authority without jurisdiction is a nullity, void ab initio, and its invalidity can be raised at any stage, including in collateral proceedings or for the first time on appeal, as a defect of jurisdiction cannot be cured even by consent.

CIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar
74 ITR 41 · 1969 · Supreme Court
40
citing judgments

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

Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax
408 ITR 500 · 2018 · High Court
32
citing judgments

A tribunal can exercise its discretion to admit an additional ground of appeal, even if raised for the first time, provided it considers the facts and circumstances of the case.

CIT v. Geo Industries and Insecticides (1) Pvt Ltd.
96 TTJ 211 · 2005 · ITAT
30
citing judgments

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) can adjudicate a fresh claim raised for the first time before it, provided it is permissible under the law.

Ramco Cements Ltd. v. DCIT
373 ITR 146 · 2015 · High Court
28
citing judgments

An assessee can make a claim of deduction for the first time before the appellate authorities.

Judgments citing first appeal

DCIT-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1148/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry () & Shri S Rifaur Rahman ()

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth (Ld. Adv)For Respondent: Shri Rahul Kumar (Ld. CIT DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

then AO, whereby the total income of the Assessee was assessed at Rs.96,13,25,546/- against which also the Assessee preferred first appeal before the then Ld.CIT(A) who allowed the same vide order 3 ITA 1147 to 1149/Mum/2023 Reliance Infrastructure Ltd dated 27/01/2017 and therefore, the Assessing Officer

DCIT-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1147/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry () & Shri S Rifaur Rahman ()

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth (Ld. Adv)For Respondent: Shri Rahul Kumar (Ld. CIT DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

then AO, whereby the total income of the Assessee was assessed at Rs.96,13,25,546/- against which also the Assessee preferred first appeal before the then Ld.CIT(A) who allowed the same vide order 3 ITA 1147 to 1149/Mum/2023 Reliance Infrastructure Ltd dated 27/01/2017 and therefore, the Assessing Officer

Shri Babubhai Bhimajibhai Mali, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 171/AHD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Babubhai Bhimajibhai The Ito Mali V. Ward-1(2)(1) 120, M.G. Market, Ahmedabad-380015 Shanti Commercial Centre Gujarat Nagar Sheth Ho Vando Gheekanta Ahmedabad – 360 001 Gujarat Pan:Aappm 7611 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" य थ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" य थ" थ" Assessee By : Shri Prashant Shrivastav, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vipul Chavda,Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Shrivastav, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Chavda,Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 253(3)Section 44ASection 57Section 69C

u/s.144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 30/12/2016, wherein income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.1,15,92,397/-. The assessee filed its first appeal with Ld.CIT(A) , and the Ld.CIT(A) issued as many as seven notices to the assessee. The assessee did not comply with the notices

M/S Ci Builders P Ltd, Bhopal vs. The DCIT-1(1)

ITA 253/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee on the dates of hearing fixed by CIT(A), but still without complying with the mandate of section 250(6). Therefore, the impugned first appeal- orders passed by CIT(A) deserve to be set aside and the matters are fit for remand to the file

M/S C.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. The ACIT 1(1), Bhopal

ITA 249/IND/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Jan 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee on the dates of hearing fixed by CIT(A), but still without complying with the mandate of section 250(6). Therefore, the impugned first appeal- orders passed by CIT(A) deserve to be set aside and the matters are fit for remand to the file

M/S C.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 248/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

identical in both appeals. Therefore, we are re-producing below the assessee’s condonation-application and previous counsel’s affidavit as filed in first appeal being ITA No. 247/Ind/2023 of AY 2010-11: Page 2 of 16 C.I. Builders Private Limited, Bhopal ITA Nos. 247 & 248/Ind/2023 A.Y.2010-11 & 2012-13 Page ... previous counsel in not only filing appeals. Ld. AR submitted that the previous counsel did not even make appearances before CIT(A) in first- appeals which has led to passing of ex-parte orders by CIT(A). Then, Ld. AR carried us to the above affidavit of previous counsel

M/S C.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. The ACIT, 1(2), Bhopal

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 247/IND/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Jan 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

identical in both appeals. Therefore, we are re-producing below the assessee’s condonation-application and previous counsel’s affidavit as filed in first appeal being ITA No. 247/Ind/2023 of AY 2010-11: Page 2 of 16 C.I. Builders Private Limited, Bhopal ITA Nos. 247 & 248/Ind/2023 A.Y.2010-11 & 2012-13 Page ... previous counsel in not only filing appeals. Ld. AR submitted that the previous counsel did not even make appearances before CIT(A) in first- appeals which has led to passing of ex-parte orders by CIT(A). Then, Ld. AR carried us to the above affidavit of previous counsel

Manoj Kumar Lade, Mumbai vs. International Tax-Ward-3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3276/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Reepal G. TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 142(1)Section 144

rejecting assessee’s reasons explaining delay in filing of appeal. After considering the reasons given by the assessee causing delay in filing of first appeal, we are satisfied that the delay in filing of appeal was for the bonafide reasons and not intentional. Thus, the delay of 33 days ... filing of first appeal is condoned. The appeal is restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) shall grant reasonable opportunity of hearing/make submissions before deciding the appeal, in accordance with law. 8. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced

Mukesh Trends Lifestyle Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 829/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2018-19 Mukesh Trends Lifestyle Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax N.H. No.8, Narol Naroda V. Circle-2(1)(2) Road Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-382 405 (Gujarat) Pan: Aabcm0500F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" य थ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" य थ" थ" Assessee By : Shri Vihar Soni, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Coram

For Appellant: Shri Vihar Soni, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

with respect to claim of deduction of depreciation on intangible asset (right to use drainage line) claimed by the assessee. The assessee filed its first appeal before Ld.CIT(A), which was dismissed by Ld.CIT(A) mainly for non- prosecution by holding as under:- “4. During the course of appellate proceedings

Rajyash Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 817/AHD/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Shri Hasmukh V. Doshi &For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 115TSection 12(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 253Section 80G

provided to AO to get benefit of time limit provided u/s. 115TD(5) of IT Act 1961.” 3.1. The assessee has now filed its first appeal before the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad. The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted, at the outset, that notices were not viewed by the assessee

Rajyash Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 816/AHD/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Shri Hasmukh V. Doshi &For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 115TSection 12(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 253Section 80G

provided to AO to get benefit of time limit provided u/s. 115TD(5) of IT Act 1961.” 3.1. The assessee has now filed its first appeal before the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad. The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted, at the outset, that notices were not viewed by the assessee

Bhavin Gunvantbhai Sagar, Ahmedabad vs. Dy.CIT., Circle-2(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 634/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad22 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2017-18 Bhavin Gunvantbhai Sagar The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 501, Madhuram Apartment V. Tax, Nr. Sant Kabir School Circle-2(2)(1) Ahmedabad – 380013 Ahmedabad-380015 Gujarat Gujarat Pan: Ammps 1447 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" यथ" "" य "" य थ" थ"/ (Respondent) थ" Assessee By : Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.D.R. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Coram This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Appellate Order Dated 21/06/2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Cit(A)” In Short] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Assessment Year 2017-18 (Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1053833888(1)), The Appellate Proceedings Have Arisen Before Ld.Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 26/12/2019 Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao") U/S.143(3) Of The 1961 Act (Din & Order No. Itba/Ast/S/143(3)/2019-20/1023131866(1)). Bhavin Gunvantbhai Sagar V. Dcit Ay 2017-18 2

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

assesse was not accepted by the AO, which led to aforesaid additions to the income of the assessee. The assessee filed its first appeal before Ld.CIT(A). During appellate proceedings , Ld.CIT(A) issued two notices dated 13/1/2021 and 11/05/2023 to the assessee. The assessee requested for adjournment in response

Meka Ranganayakamma, Krishna District vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 119/VIZ/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 50GSection 54G

section 50C of the Act. The penalty order is self-explanatory itself needs no further explanation. It is pertinent to mention here that the first appeal preferred against the assessment order of the AO was dismissed by the first appellate authority confirming the decision of the AO by observing that

ACIT, CC-14, Delhi vs. Lakshya Consultants Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 181/DEL/2021[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Delhi22 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT- DR
Section 153ASection 253Section 5

impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay filed in the High Court would stand rejected and the Miscellaneous First Appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by time. No costs." (emphasis is ours) 5.5 In the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRs vs Executive

Aaditya Diamgold Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 627/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year : 2017-18 Aaditya Diamgold Pvt.Ltd. The Income Tax Officer 21, 1St Floor Iscon Arcade V. Ward-1(I)(I) Nr.Lal Bungalows Ahmedabad Cg Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad Gujarat – 380 009 Pan: Aalca 4525 A अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" यथ" "" य "" य थ" थ"/ (Respondent) थ" Assessee By : Shri Parimal Sinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Ramit Kocharthis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Appellate Order Dated 14/07/2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Cit(A)” In Short] Under Section 250 Of Sub-Section (6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Assessment Year 2017-18 (Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/ 1054374868(1)), The Appellate Proceedings Have Arisen Before Ld. Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2019 Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of Aaditya Diamgold Pvt.Ltd. V. Ito Ay 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Parimal Sinh B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 68

dismissed on the grounds of non prosecution by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) did not discuss at all the issues involved in the first appeal filed by the assessee with ld. CIT(A) . The operative portion of the appellate order dated 14.07.2023 passed by ld. CIT(A) is reproduced

Sri. Ramachandra Suresh, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(8), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1014/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaiana Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234Section 250Section 69A

parte without allowing sufficient and real opportunity to the appellant to Sri Ramachandra Suresh, Bangalore Page 2 of 4 represent the case in first appeal especially since the assessment order was also passed in ex-parte fashion without the benefit of any explanation from the appellant in support

Kailash Band, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1), Indore

ITA 346/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kailash Band, Nfac/Ito, 01,Balgara, 1(1), बनाम/ Sanwer, Indore. Vs. Indore. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Bxtpk4018B Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 17.01.2024

Section 147Section 250(6)Section 253(5)

assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit on stamp. Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A), while conducting first- appeal, has served notices of hearing as well as order of first-appeal on e- mail of assessee although the assessee has specifically mentioned

Chordia Safedeposit and Vaults Private Ltd, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 509/JPR/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jan 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)

unexplained and added to the total income of the assessee. This would result in an addition of Rs. 18,01,000/-. 3.2 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO by observing as under:- ‘’ 4.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1964/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80I

identical disallowance was made in the assessment year 2006-07. Relief was granted to the assessee on first appeal by order dated July 9, 2010 against which the revenue preferred further appeal before this Hon’ble Tribunal, being ITA No. 1936 (Kol) of 2010. The said appeal was rejected ... appeal before the CIT(A). Before CIT(A), the Assessee contended that identical disallowance was made in the assessment year 2006-07 and in first appeal, the CIT(A) by order dated July 9, 2010 deleted the addition made by the AO. Against the said order, the revenue preferred further

Gurjeet Singh, Ladwa vs. ITO, Ward -1, Kurushetra

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

ITA 2726/DEL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 2(14)

assessment order dated 28.09.2019. 5. It is common knowledge that Covid-19 caused unprecedented disruption across the globe at the relevant time when the first appeal was expected to be filed and thereafter. Hence, we find force in the claim of the assessee against any deliberate complacency. When covid period ... from a humble background and a rural agriculturist and in such background no mala fide can be imputed for delay in filing the first appeal by adopting the hyper technical approach. A reference to the useful judgments in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Another vs. Mst. Katiji