“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

Tarun Jain, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 2(4) Fbd, Faridabad

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

ITA 4193/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmantarun Jain, Vs. Ito, Ward 2 (4), House No.641, Sector 7B, Faridabad. Faridabad – 121 006 (Haryana). (Pan : Agepj5824D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Neeraj Goyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2025 Date Of Order : 11.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 28.02.2025 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal With A Delay Of 62 Days From The Date Of Appellate Order. He Submitted That On January 7, 2025, A Robbery Took Place At The Assessee’S Shop For Which An Fir Was Registered In Sector 8, Faridabad, A Copy Of The Same Is Placed On Record & This Unfortunate Incident Caused

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 274

considered opinion, there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Brief facts of the case are, assessment in this case was completed under 5. section 143(3) of the Income

Raas Intratech Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Delhi

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

ITA 3497/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Section 143(3)

before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide his order dated 28-03-2025 partly allowed the appeal against which the assesse is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the order of the CIT(A) dated 18.3.2025 is against the principles of natural justice

Ravinder Kaur Bhasin, Pritampura vs. ACIT, NFAC

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

ITA 1118/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Ravinder Kaur Bhasin, Vs Acit/Nfac, 30, Dhudial Apartment, New Delhi Pitam Pura, Delhi – 110 034 Pan No. Anbpb1692H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 69

preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide his order dated 30.12.2024 dismissed the appeal against which the assesse is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that CIT(A) not appreciated the facts that evidences already filed during the assessment proceedings

DCIT, Circle 4(2), New Delhi vs. Blue Jay Finlease Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4416/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Blue Jay Finlease Pvt. Ltd, Dcit, Circle-4(2), 26, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi Delhi-110001 Pan: Aaacb5215H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rajesh Bansal, Ca Department By Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

Fund are VCFs. As a result, ground no 6 is allowed.” This is what leaves the Revenue aggrieved who has filed the instant appeal before the tribunal. 4. Both the learned representatives reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the CIT(A)’s above extracted detailed discussion. Learned

Khurshid Ahmad Dar, Jammu and Kashmir, India vs. ITO Ward, Udhampur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 236/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lalmeena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Blekhurshid Ahmad Dar Vs. Ito, Ward, Nully Poshwari Turkawangam, Udhampur Shopia, 192305, Jammu & Kashmir, India.Pin 192305. Pan No. Awmpd5664K Assessee By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri V.S. Aggarwal, Itp. Revenue By Mrs. Roshanta Kumari Meena, Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025. Date Of Pronouncement To. [1 .2025. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

grounds of appeal. 3. The Ld. AR explained that there was bonafide reason for the delay of 171 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal as the impugned order passed under section 250 of the Act, by the commissioner of income tax appeals for the assessment year

Smt. Tabasum Amin Ganie, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 217/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: PendingITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: None

Section 144Section 250

dated 31st January, 2024, has been received by the assessee on the same date (communication date ) and the due date of filing this appeal before the tribunal was within sixty days therefrom , but this appeal has been actually filed (dispatched) by speed post from Srinagar on 10th March

Zoyieb Ali, Srinagah vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

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

ITA 687/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lalmeena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer, Zoyieb Ali Ward-1 170 A, Green Park Lane Bye Pass, Near Jamkash, Srinagar Kapurthala Pan:Akapa2889F Shri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate & Assessee By Shri V.S. Aggarwal, Itp Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Revenue By 23.09.2025. Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement /A // .2025. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.:

Section 124Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

profit element embedded should be taxable and not the entire cash deposit. 3. There was a delay of 49 days in filing this appeal before the tribunal. Ld. council for the assessee has explained that the delay has been occurred dua non 3 communication as primary Contact details

Davinder Singh Bhullar, Kapurthala vs. Income Tax Officer, Kapurthala

In the result, the captioned appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 587/ASR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lalmeena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Ble

Section 144Section 147Section 69A

hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. 3. There was a delay of 60 days in filing this appeal before the tribunal. Ld. council for the assessee has explained that the delay has been occurred dua medical illness of the assessee. In support

Kishor Rameshbhai Mehta, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Bharuch

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

ITA 60/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.60/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Kishor Rameshbhai Mehta Vs. Ito, Prop. Of Aditya Infrastructure, Ward - 1(5), 139, Maher Nagar, Opp. Baps Bharuch Hospital, Adajan Gam Circle, Surat - 395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adepm 4458 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2025

Section 194ASection 194CSection 2(24)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 68Section 69A

provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal of appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit, the assessee stated that his consultant had filed physical appeal on 29.04.2016 and mentioned communication address in Form 35 against ... When it came to know about the order of CIT(A), he immediately contacted his Authorized Representative (AR) and filed the appeal before the Tribunal, hence, the delay of 111 days has occurred. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that the delay was not intentional

Kirtikumar Nagindas Shah, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(6), Surat

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

ITA 281/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.281/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Hybrid Hearing) Kirtikumar Nagindas Shah Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, बनाम/ A-1103, Regent Residency, Circle-1(3), Surat (Current Jurisdiction Vs. Nr. Saurabh Society, Pal, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(6), Surat-394 510 Surat, Income Tax Office, Anavil Business Center, Adajan-Hazira Road, Surat-395 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Anjps 9031 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 249(3)Section 250

sufficient cause for the delay in filing of appeal. Therefore, he dismissed the appeal. 4. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR has filed paper book giving copies of various details filed before the AO. He submitted that the CIT(A) passed the order

Prime Co Operative Bank Ltd, Surat vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 19/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.19/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Prime Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Vs. Acit, Khatodra, Ring Road, Surat – Circle-1(1)(1), 395002 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcp7117M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hiren Vepari, Ca Respondent By Shri Aashish Pophare, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2025

Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

hearing the assessee. Hence, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted two paper books and argued that the re-opening is required

Sajithkumar Subi, Ankleshwar vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward-2(4), Bharuch

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

ITA 670/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.670/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Hybrid Hearing) Sajithkumar Subi, Ito Ward- 2(4), Bharuch बनाम/ 60, Raghuveer Society, Opp. Harikunj Building, Above Bank Of Vs. Surwadi, Bor Bhatha Road, Baroda, Station Road, Bharuch Ankleshwar, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Axcpk0947P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Ms. Kinjal Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2025

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

except by leave of the Tribunal, urge or be heard in support of any ground not set forth in the memorandum of appeal, but the Tribunal, in deciding the appeal, shall not be confined to the grounds set forth in the memorandum of appeal or taken by leave ... order regarding the additions of Rs.16,08,814/-. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 8. Further aggrieved, the assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the cash deposits of Rs.15,48,200/- made by assessee is nothing but her labour

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat vs. Kishan Baranwal, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 214/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.214/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Shri Kishan Baranwal Circle – 2(1)(1), 217, 2Nd Floor, Aryaman Arcade, Surat Bhagal, Surat- 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bjkpb0758E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 69A

regular books of account. He, therefore, allowed the appeal of the appellant. 9. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), revenue filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue submitted that the decision of the CIT(A) is not acceptable

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Madan Mohan Gupta, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 882/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar Garg, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, Ld. CIT

Section 132(4)Section 250Section 69A

made by the AO. Being aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT (A), the Revenue has come in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced herein above. 4. The ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 5. On the other hand

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Sh. Ashwani Gupta, Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1061/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Revenue Has Assailed The Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 In

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271D

appellant is allowed. Feeeling dissatisfied with the above finding so recorded in the order of the Id. CIT(A), revenue preferred the present appeal before this tribunal on the grounds as reiterated herein above. Ld. DR vehemently argued that the Id. Addl./Jt. CIT considered the legal as well ... where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 or an appeal to the Tribunal under section 253, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Sh. Ashwani Gupta, Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1059/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Revenue Has Assailed The Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 In

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271D

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Sh. Ashwani Gupta, Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1058/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Revenue Has Assailed The Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 In

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271D

Wockhardt Limited, Aurangabad vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 837/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Manthan ShahFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 127Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

valid. Hence ground nos. 1 to 5 raised by the appellant do not sustain, hence dismissed.” 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : “On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) pursuant to order

Wockhardt Limited, Aurangabad vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 836/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Manthan ShahFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 127Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

Wockhardt Limited, Aurangabad vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 835/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.837, 835 & 836/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Wockhardt Limited, D-4, Midc, Chikalthana, Aurangabad-431006 Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Pune Pan : Aaacw2472M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Manthan Shah Shri Amit Bobde 13-08-2025 10-11-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Above Three Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Order(S) All Dated 27.01.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Pune ["Cit(A)"] Pertaining To Assessment Years ("Ays") 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19. Since, The Issue(S) Involved Are Identical, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 127Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

held to be valid. Hence ground nos.1 to 5 raised by the appellant do not sustain, hence dismissed.” Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : "On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) pursuant