← All Phrases

“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

Rockwell Automation India Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-19(1), Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3861/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalrockwell Automation India Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Circle-19(1), Registered Address: 131, Vs. Delhi. Functional Industrial Are, Patparganj, Delhi-110092 Communication Address: 131, Functional Industrial Area, Patparganj, New Delhi. Pan-Aaccr3791A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajit Jain, Ar Department By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 19.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.11.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C (13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) Dated 30.07.2024 For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Ae That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing / Assembling Of Automation & Industrial Control Products / Systems. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & A Reference Was Made To The Tpo Due With Transactions With Ae’S. The Return Of Income Was Filed On Rockwell Automation India Private Limited Vs. Dcit 15.02.2021 Declaring Total Income At Rs.97,08,46,360/-. The Tpo Vide Its Order Dated 28.07.2023 Passed U/S 92Ca(3) Of The Act Has Proposed Adjustments Totaling To Rs. 26,12,44,668/-. Thereafter, The Ao Has Passed The Draft Assessment Order U/S 144C(1) Of The Act Dated 27.09.2023 Wherein The Ao Has Proposed The Additions Towards The Tp Adjustment As Per Tpo’S Order & Proposed To Assess The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.19,88,57,458/- & Further Proposed To Disallow Relief Claimed U/S 90/90A At Rs.1,04,60,287/-. Against The Draft Assessment Order, The Assessee Filed Objections Before The Drp.

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(1)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(8)Section 90Section 90ASection 92C

total income stood computed at Rs.1,11,49,80,881/-. 3. Against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “Pertaining to Transfer Pricing matters 1. On the facts and in law, the Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel

Singla Apparels Pvt Ltd, Gandhi Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3445/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Singla Apparels Pvt.Ltd. Vs Ito House No.17, Street No.2, Ward Shankar Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, C.R. Building, Ito Krishan Nagar, Delhi-110051. I.P.Estate Pan-Aajcs3628L New Delhi-110002 Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Singla Apparels Pvt.Ltd. Vs Ito 7244, Mahavir Gali Ward Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-1100531. C.R. Building, Ito Pan-Aajcs3628L I.P.Estate New Delhi-110002 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Utkarsa Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.11.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dt.11.06.2024 & 12.08.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-8/10554/2019-20 & In Appeal No. Nfac/2016-17/10058210 Respectively, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act & Penalty

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 156Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

dated 11.06.2024, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. ITA Nos.3445 & 5163/Del/2024 10. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the CIT(A). Delhi has erred in justifying the additions of Rs.1

Santokh Singh, Amritsar vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Amritsar

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

ITA 28/ASR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 28/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Santokh Singh, H. No. 201, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Village Kot Kotgurbaksh, Amritsar. Amritsar, Punjab [Pan:-Emxps0241A] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv & Sh. V.S. Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 144Section 250Section 282

Form No. 35, in absence of any submission or any response to notices on four separate occasions. 5. Now, the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal and the ld. AR of the assesse was aggrieved on the ground that no proper opportunity was allowed by the ld. First appellate

Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bilaspur vs. Baldev Prasad Patel, Mungli

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 646/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Raipur14 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.646/Rpr/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Sharma & Shri VivekFor Respondent: Ms. Manisha Kinnu, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 69A

appellant. As a result, the appeal is allowed.” 5. Aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ld. CIT-DR strongly opposed the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in deleting the addition made by the AO. She submitted

Sanjay Kumar Shukla, Patna vs. Dc/Ac, Circle-6, Patna

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

ITA 269/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vipin Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT
Section 115Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

dated 04.01.2025, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 144 of the Act, dated 21.12.2019. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: 2 ITA No.: 269/PAT/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sanjay Kumar Shukla. “1. For that appellant is engage

Sri Tirumala Estates and Farmlands, Visakhapatnam vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 552/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 40

without going into the merits of the case.” 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri, GVN Hari, Advocate, submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed

Sri Tirumala Estates and Farmlands, Visakhapatnam vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 551/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 40

without going into the merits of the case.” 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri, GVN Hari, Advocate, submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed

Malay Multani, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT (Central), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1095/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT(DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 263

file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. PCIT, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the proceedings initiated under section 263 are bad in law and void ab initio

Avva Sitarama Rao, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle- 2(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 692/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 251

after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 7. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, made a statement at the Bar that, the appeal filed

Sangeeta Yadav, K V Ranga Reddy vs. ITO., Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1506/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed.

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is the addition

Reddy Sampat Vijaya, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle - 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1498/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250

agreement and consideration as per the registered sale deed. 7. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground nos.4 to 10 of assessee’s appeal is additions towards agricultural

Reddy Sampat Vijaya, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle -1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1497/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250

agreement and consideration as per the registered sale deed. 7. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground nos.4 to 10 of assessee’s appeal is additions towards agricultural

Reddy Sampat Vijaya, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle- 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1496/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250

agreement and consideration as per the registered sale deed. 7. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground nos.4 to 10 of assessee’s appeal is additions towards agricultural

DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Archeesh Health Care Private Limited, K V Ranga Reddy

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

ITA 124/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 250Section 35DSection 37

from related parties. 8 M/s. Archeesh Health Care Private Limited 7. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The Ld. CIT-DR Ms. U. Mini Chandran, submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of the assessee

Signode India Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 240/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32

Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Aggrieved by the Final Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee company is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 13 ITA.No.434/Hyd/2021 & ITA 240/Hyd/2023 M/s. Signode India Limited 7. Sri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee, submitted that, the Assessing Officer

Signode India Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 434/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32

Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Aggrieved by the Final Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee company is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 13 ITA.No.434/Hyd/2021 & ITA 240/Hyd/2023 M/s. Signode India Limited 7. Sri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee, submitted that, the Assessing Officer

Triveni Devi Bhutra, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 61(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 965/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 10DSection 115BSection 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80C

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2017-18 dated 07.03.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of this case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal-1, GURUGRAM ... appellant is partly allowed as above.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. ITA No.: 965/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Triveni Devi Bhutra. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. It was submitted

Abdul Jabbar Jaheer Husain, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-8(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2245/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2245/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Abdul Jabbar Jaheer The Income Tax Officer, Husain, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 8(2), No.17/73, Pillayar Koil Street, Chennai. Ayapakkam, Chennai – 600 077. Pan: Adopj 8688E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri V. Padmanaban, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri V. Padmanaban, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54BSection 54F

income by overstating the deduction claimed u/s.54F of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed a statement of expenditure with reference to architectural and interior work carried out and the total expenditure denied

Kulandaivel Thaalamuthu, Namakkal vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Namakkal

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

ITA 1752/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1752/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Kulandaivel Thaalamuthu, The Assistant Commissioner 286/2, 1St Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, S.G. Complex, Circle 1, Thuraiyur Road, Namakkal. Namakkal – 637 001. Pan: Abnpt 2841G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 44A

view of these facts, this appeal is dismissed.” :- 5 -: 8. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds:- 1. The order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 23.10.2024 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069893361(1) for the above mentioned Assessment

Techsol Engineering Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1500/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1500/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Techsol Engineering Services (India) Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, 1St Floor, No. 83, Corporate Ward 3(1), Sapthagiri Apartments, Ttk Road, Chennai. Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Aadct1863A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ranjit Singh, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.09.2021 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 1273 Days. The Assessee Filed Petition Accompanied By Notarized Affidavit By Giving Explanation To Condone The Delay.

For Appellant: Shri Ranjit Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 250

acceptable. Since the assessee has miserably failed to explain the reasonable cause for the inordinate delay of 1273 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, 3 I.T.A. No.1500/Chny/25 the ld. DR prayed to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee as not maintainable. 5. Heard both the parties ... perused the petition for condonation of delay of 1273 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and for better understanding, the reasons stated in the petition are reproduced herein below: 1. The order under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2018-19 was passed