“appeal before the tribunal”

AppealsSection 253Section 25316,033 judgments

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

Leading authorities on appeal before the tribunal

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.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT

223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court

2,040

citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

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.

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT

389 ITR 326 · 2016 · High Court

241

citing judgments

An appellate authority can admit and adjudicate additional grounds of appeal if they are legal in nature or go to the root of the matter, even if not raised before lower authorities or filed belatedly.

Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar

1 SCC 591 · 1985 · Reported

225

citing judgments

The appellate tribunal must render a proper decision on both facts and law, disposing of an appeal on its merits rather than dismissing it solely due to the appellant's absence. This obligation is derived from Section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and reflects principles of natural justice.

Otters Club v. DIT

392 ITR 244 · 2017 · High Court

202

citing judgments

The Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days.

CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co Ltd.

81 ITR 303 · 1971 · High Court

202

citing judgments

Income received by an assessee for services rendered to an Indian company may not be taxable, particularly when the Revenue does not contest its non-taxability. This principle aligns with CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955, which has been approved by the Supreme Court.

Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT

317 ITR 433 · 2009 · High Court

202

citing judgments

Orders that are inordinately delayed are liable to be recalled and heard afresh, and the Appellate Tribunal President should frame guidelines for timely disposal of appeals.

Judgments citing appeal before the tribunal

Hushn Jahan, Amethi vs. Income Tax Officer Amethi, Amethi

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

ITA 68/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Hushn Jahan V. The Income Tax Officer Palpur Raebareli Road Amethi Jagdishpur, Musfirkhana Amethi (U.P) Tan/Pan:Autpj9095P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 69A

Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that there is a delay of 414 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit of the assessee, which were received ... come to know about the passing of the impugned order and that in view of these facts, the assessee could not file the appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed time limit. The Ld. A.R. prayed that the delay be kindly condoned and the appeal be heard on merits

Ramendra Singh, Kannauj vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2)(3), Kannauj

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

ITA 53/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ramendra Singh V. The Income Tax Officer Bahadurpur Ward 4(2)(3) Majhigawan Kannauj Kannauj (U.P) Tan/Pan:Gzqps7971P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shvetank Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.07.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That Huge Amounts Have Been Credited To The Assessee’S Bank Account No.001311002103008 Maintained With Farrukhabad District Central Co-Operative Bank, Saurikh, Kannauj By Way Of Cash & Credit Entries. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Notice Under Section 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’), Requiring The Assessee To Furnish The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. However, The Said Notice Was

For Appellant: Shri Shvetank Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R

Section 115BSection 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69ASection 80T

attached). 3.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that there is a delay of 538 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated 21.03.2025 for condonation of delay, stating therein that the assessee

Ram Kumar Maurya, Bhadohi vs. ITO, Ward - 1(5), Bhadohi

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

ITA 140/ALLD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Ram Kumar Maurya V. The Income Tax Officer Parkritkar Khamaria Ward 1(5) Bhadohi (U.P) Bhadohi Tan/Pan:Babpm1314H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.07.2024, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-6, Kolkata For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. On The Basis Of The Information In Possession Of The Income Tax Department That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits To The Tune Of Rs.12,84,330/- In His Saving Bank Account No.28260100004067 Maintained With Bank Of Baroda, Khamaria Branch, Bhadohi, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. In Response To The Statutory Notice Issued By The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 282Section 69

justice. 3.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that there is a delay of 308 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the ITA No.140/ALLD/2025 Page 5 of 7 assessee had filed an application dated Nil for condonation of delay, stating

Sandeep Kumar Pandey, Handia vs. Income Tax Officer - 1(3), Prayagraj

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

ITA 136/ALLD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2019-20 Sandeep Kumar Pandey V. The Income Tax Officer 1(3) 012, Saitapur, Barethi Allahabad Handia, Allahabad (U.P) Tan/Pan:Blapp5054M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.05.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2019- 20. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Of Rs.12,27,477/- In Bank Account No.0369000112307099 Maintained With Punjab National Bank & Of Rs.86,000/- In Bank Account Maintained With Bank Of Baroda During The Year Under Consideration. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69A

noticed from record that as per the Registry of this Tribunal, there was a delay of 429 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It is seen that as per Form 36 originally filed by the assessee, the date of order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority was, inadvertently ... correct date of the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, i.e., 21.05.2025, as per which there was no delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Both the parties have conceded to this fact. Hence, the appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal on 20.07.2025 against the order

Meenu, Govindpur, Allahabad vs. Income Tax Officer CPC (NFAC, Delhi)

Appeal stands dismissed in- limine on the ground of limitation

ITA 135/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Meenu V. The Income Tax Officer Mig-23, Govindpur Cpc A-503, Satpushp Apartment Civil Lines, Allahabad Pan:Akfpm3770J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri S. K. Yogeshwar, Advocate Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.02.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 05.08.2017, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.8,30,470/-. The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc), Bangalore, Vide Intimation Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’), Dated 26.03.2019 Assessed The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.16,12,650/-.

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Yogeshwar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 253(3)Section 253(5)

facts. 2.3 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that there is a delay of 824 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated 09.07.2025 for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit, stating therein ... submitted that the assessee has failed to demonstrate that there was a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and, therefore, the delay in filing the appeal should not be condoned and the appeal of the assessee be dismissed. 4.0 I have heard the rival

Mohammad Ghufran, Kaushambi vs. ITO - 2(5), Kaushambi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 126/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Mohammad Ghufran V. The Income Tax Officer 2(5) Hazratganj Kaushambi Karari Manjhanpur Kaushambi (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bpfpg0938A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Mohit Singh Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Mohit SinghFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

During the course of hearing, it was brought to my notice that there is a delay of 292 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. However, the assessee has not filed any application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal

Shailesh Devrajbhai Padmani, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 551/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.551/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Physical Hearing) Shailesh Devrajbhai Padmani Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(5), बनाम/ A/503, Swarg Residency, Surat, Room No. 608, 6Nd Floor, Vs. Laxmikant Ashram Road, Nr. Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Hathiwala Mandir, Surat-395 Surat-395 001 004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aoupp 6320 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 97 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before this Tribunal. In the affidavit, it has been stated that neither the notice of hearing nor the appellate order was sent in the given ... NFAC, Delhi. Subsequently, when he came to know about the CIT(A)’s order, he immediately downloaded the same and filed appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee submitted that the delay in filing appeal was neither wilful nor deliberate, but due to the circumstances beyond his control. He requested that

Raj Kumar Agarwal, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 398/SRT/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.398/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2023-24) (Hybrid Hearing) Raj Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Ito, B-303, Megh Malhar Apartment, Ward – 2(2)(1), Near Vidhya Bharti School, Bhatar Surat Road, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abtpa0902D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2025

Section 115BSection 154Section 250Section 250(6)

income of the assessee. He dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Addl./JCIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that the assessee had clearly chosen the new tax regime u/s 115BAC

Rameshbhai Popatbhai Dakhra Legal Heir of Popatbhai Virabhai Dakhra, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(3), Surat

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

ITA 170/SRT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.170/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Physical Hearing) Rameshbhai Popatbhai Dakhra Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(3), बनाम/ Legal Heir Of Popatbhai Surat, Aayakar Bhavan, Surat-395 Vs. Virabhai Dakhra 001 Plot No.17,Ganesh Row House, Nr. Shyamdham Temple, Sarthana, Jakatnaka, Surat- 395 006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aknpd 3920 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 01/09/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2025

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

other sources. The CIT(A), accordingly, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted copy of death certificate of assessee and copies of various case laws relied upon

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Surat, Adajan vs. Chandubhai Jadavbhai Korat, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 720/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing) Ito, Vs. Chandubhai Jadavbhai Korat, Ward – 1(3)(1), 5, Raghuvir Bungalow, City Light Surat Road, Bharthana, B.O. Umra, Surat – 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abqpk7796L (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.36/Srt/2024 (Ay 2015-16) (Arising Out Of Ita No.720/Srt/2024) Chandubhai Jadavbhai Korat, Vs. Ito, 5, Raghuvir Bungalow, City Light Road, Ward – 1(3)(1), Bharthana, B.O. Umra, Surat - 395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abqpk7796L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2025

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 68

scrip stock as genuine transactions. He allowed the appeal of the assessee. 8. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), revenue filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submitted that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made of Rs.5

Baker Abdulaziz Norat, Panoli, Bharuch, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 1(1), Bharuch, Gujarat

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

ITA 1232/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1232/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Baker Abdulaziz Norat, Vs. Ito, 107, Panoli Travels, Station Road, Ward – 1(1), Panoli, Bharuch – 394115 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Akepn7411Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms Vidhi Pandya, Ca Respondent By Shri Abhishek Gautam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 68

dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the matter on merits. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on ground of limitation without condoning delay

Iqbal Sabbirahmed Desai, Surat vs. ITO Ward-1, Bardoli

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

ITA 1222/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1222/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Iqbal Sabbirahmed Desai, Vs. Ito, Near Madressa, At – Tadakeshwar, Ward – 1, Tal – Mandvi, Dist – Surat – 394170 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Behpd5081E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayur Thakkar, Ca Respondent By Shri Abhishek Gautam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2025

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

upheld the addition made by AO and dismissed the appeal. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted a paper book containing 33 pages, including various details. He submitted that

Sri Venkatacharya Vaidika Samsthan, Vishakhapatnam vs. ITO, Ward - 2(1), Vishakhapatnam

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 323/VIZ/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Nov 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.322 & 323/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2025-26) Sri Venkatacharya Vaidika Samsthan V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1)) 11-203, Sowmya Kuti, Prahladapuram 35, 50-92-35, Infinity Tower Visakhapatnam – 530027 Sankara Matam Road Opposite Reliance Fresh [Pan: Aaits2838J] Nearby Main Road, Madhura Nagar Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam 530016 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 74 days in filing both these appeals before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed common affidavit requesting for condonation of delay for both the appeals. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeals ... appeals with delay of 74 days. 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR strongly objected for condonation of delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. 8. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the contents of the affidavit filed

Sri Venkatacharya Vaidika Samsthan, Visakhapatnam vs. ITO, Ward - 2(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 322/VIZ/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Nov 2025AY 2025-26

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

The State Farming Corporation of Kerala Ltd, Kollam vs. ACIT, Kollam Circle, Kollam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 819/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 The State Farming Corporation Of Kerala Ltd. .......... Appellant P.B. No. 13, Vettithitta P.O., Punalur 689696 [Pan: Aaact8150F] Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kollam ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Iype John, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) Dated 03.06.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Government Of Kerala Undertaking Engaged In Production Of Latex & Manufacturing Cenex Out Of It. Apart From Latex Production From Rubber Plantations, The Company Is Engaged In Production Of Cashes, Coconut, Pepper, Plantain, Etc. The Return Of Income For Ay 2015-16 Was Filed On 01.01.2018 Declaring Loss Of Rs. 1,02,61,730/-. Against

For Appellant: Shri Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 244A

Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed by the CIT(A). 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 455 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal ... diligent to pursue the appeal. Thus, the appellant had failed to show existence of sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to condone the delay of 455 days. Accordingly, the appeal

Ram Ratan Singh Pal, Lucknow vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 387/LKW/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 Ram Ratan Singh Pal V. The Assessment Unit 5C/111, Girdhar Kunj Nfac Sector 5, Vrindavan Colony Telibagh, Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ahqpp7018N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.01.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 15.01.2021, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.2,81,520/- Under The Head Income From Salary. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & A Refund Of Rs.2,50,510/- Was Created. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed Revised Return Of Income Under Section 139(5) Of The Act On 25.02.2021, Declaring The Same Income Originally Returned, I.E., Rs.2,81,520/-. In The Revised Return Of Income, The Assessee Declared Income From Salary At Rs.2,81,520/- & Income From

For Appellant: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 270ASection 44A

permission. 3.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that there is a delay of 476 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. She further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated Nil for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit and Medical ... therefore, the assessee was not in a position to discuss the matter with his counsel for filing the appeal before the Tribunal, within the prescribed time limit. It was submitted that the delay caused in filing the appeal was not deliberate and that it was beyond the control

Manjeet Kaur Kamboj, Yamuna Nagar Haryana vs. ITO Ward-2, Yamuna Nagar Haryana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 550/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumat & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 550/Chd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Manjit Kaur Kamboj, Ito Ward-2, Lotus Valley Public School, बनाम Yamuna Nagar, Sector – 18, Huda, Haryana Vs. Yamunanagar, Haryana "ायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Abmpk5213G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) िनधा""रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Ms. Meenal Goyal, Ca & Sh. Abhinav Jain, Adv. राज" की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025 आदेश/Order Shri Laliet Kumar: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.03.2024 Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Grounds Of Appeal, As Taken By The Assessee In Form 36, Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Ms. Meenal Goyal, CA and Sh. Abhinav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250

3092/Mum/2023 (dated 07.02.2024). 3. The Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 313 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. 550-Chd-2025 Manjeet Kaur Kamboj, Yamunanagar 4 4. The Counsel of the Assessee has filed an Affidavit dated 03.8.2024 for condonation of delay which

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Nashik vs. Madanlal Lalchand Jain, Nandurbar

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

ITA 1572/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2021-22 Acit, Central Circle-2, Madanlal Lalchand Jain Nashik Vibhare Building, Vs. Near City Police Station, Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.42/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2022-23 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-11-2025 O R D E R Per Bench:

For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69B

assessee. 8. Aggrieved with the part relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed the CO against the appeal filed by the Revenue. 9. Grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.1403/PUN/2025 ... upheld. Ground no.4 and 5 are dismissed.” 31. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 32. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to page 115 of the paper book and submitted that the major

Madanlal Lalchand Jain, Nandurbar vs. ACIT Central Circle 2, Nashik

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

ITA 1404/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69B

Madanlal Lalchand Jain, Nandurbar vs. ACIT Central Circle 2, Nashik

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

ITA 1403/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69B