“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

Anoop Jain HUF, Delhi vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle - 1, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4043/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Ritu Jain Vs Jcit (Osd) No.11, Barbar Lane, Bengali Central Circle-1 Market, New Delhi-110001 Noida Pan-Aampj9586C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2013-14] Anoop Jain Vs Jcit (Osd) No.11, Barbar Lane, Bengali Central Circle-1, Market, New Delhi-110001 Noida Pan-Aadpj2136K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2013-14] Anoop Jain Huf Vs Jcit (Osd) No.11, Barbar Lane, Bengali Central Circle-1, Market, New Delhi-110001 Noida Pan-Aaaha6321A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri S.K.Tulsian, Adv. & Shri Bhoomija Verma, Adv. Respondent By Shri Mahes Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.10.2025 Order

Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 142(3)Section 143(2)Section 153A

vide order dated 20.05.2025, has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That on facts and in law, the impugned assessment order dated 28.09.2021 and the impugned order dated

Anoop Jain, Delhi vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle - 1, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4042/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 142(3)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Ritu Jain, Delhi vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), CC - 1, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4038/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 142(3)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Datia vs. ITO Ward 2(3)(3), Jhansi

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

ITA 404/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhsewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(3)(3), (Alias Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahkari Jhansi. Samiti Maryadit Indergarh), Gram Indragarh Datia, Datia– 475 661 (Madhya Pradesh) . (Pan : Aawfs2482G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Order : 28.10.2025 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 25.11.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. We Are Proceeding To Adjudicate The Matter With The Assistance Of Ld. Dr Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR

time of hearing, it is brought to our notice that there is a delay of 194 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal on the ground that the delay in filing the appeal has occurred due to circumstances that were entirely beyond the control of the assessee; all notices

Kapil Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 393/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR

time of hearing, it is brought to our notice that there is a delay of 104 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal on the ground that the 2 assessee’s family member was suffering from a serious medical condition requiring hospital visits, emotional care and financial support

Ld Sarvodaya Hospital Private Limited, Agra vs. ITO 2(1)(1), Agra

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

ITA 375/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhld Sarvodaya Hospital Private Limited, Vs. Ito 2(1)(1), G – 11, Kamla Nagar, Agra. Agra – 282 005 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aaccl7961N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2025 Date Of Order : 28.10.2025 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 14.10.2024 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. We Are Proceeding To Decide The Appeal With The Assistance Of The Ld. Dr Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 208 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal On The Ground That The Managing

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 144

Revenue. 3. At the time of hearing, it is observed that there is a delay of 208 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal on the ground that the Managing 2 Director of the assessee company was suffering from ill health during the relevant period was under medical treatment

Chelaram Balwani, Rathi Building Ke Pass vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 194/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhshri Chelaram Balwani, Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (3), Rathi Building Ke Pass, Gwalior. Ward No.8, Ajay Pal Ki Gali, Datia, Gwalior – 475 661 (Madhya Pradesh). (Pan : Aynpb7221P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Alok Dhingra, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2025 Date Of Order : 16.10.2025 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 10.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That There Is A Delay Of 395 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal On The Ground That The Order Was Communicated Via Portal & The Registered Mail Id I.E. 71Nkkhare@Gmail.Com On The Income Tax Portal Does Not Belong To The Assessee, It Might Have Been Of Erstwhile Consultant Who

For Appellant: Shri Alok Dhingra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 147

time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice that there is a delay of 395 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal on the ground that the order was communicated via portal and the registered mail id i.e. 71nkkhare@gmail.com on the Income tax portal does

Manto Tingkhaham, Namsangmukh vs. Office of the ITO, Digboi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 161/GTY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was disposed of by order dated 21/03/2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Vide DIN & Order No :ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074803037(1).

Section 10(26)Section 250Section 69A

21/03/2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Vide DIN & Order No :ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074803037(1). 2. That the time for filing of the appeal before the Tribunal was to expire on 21/05/2025. 3. That the deponent filed an appeal before the Hon'nle Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati bench

Shambhu Kuamr Singh, Saharsa vs. ITO, Ward- 3 (4), Saharsa

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

ITA 34/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 34/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Shambhu Kumar Singh,….………....….………Appellant Resident Of Gangjala, Dist. Saharsa, Bihar, Pin Code No. 852201 [Pan:Bjnps7630F] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-3(4), Saharsha, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Brisketu Pandey, Advocate & Shri Madan Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 26, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 28, 2025 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

crops out of such cultivated land and documentary evidences of sale of harvested crop. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. It was the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee is having an agricultural income of Rs.11

Mohmedamin Mohmedumar General, Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 522/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)

issue discussed in the order u/s 263 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of ld. PCIT, the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee has submitted paper book containing all the details submitted during the assessment proceedings

Viswanathan Krishnakumar, Aluva vs. Income Tax Officer -Ward(2), Aluva

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 608/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar P.J., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 144BSection 148Section 24Section 250(6)Section 80C

before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal exparte for non prosecution. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. I heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. I find that the learned

Viswanathan Krishnakumar, Aluva vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward(2), Aluva

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 607/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar P.J., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 144BSection 148Section 24Section 250(6)Section 80C

Veekaybuilders and Developers, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward-1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 595/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Veekay Builders & Developers .......... Appellant Neduvile Vakamokotti Hosue, Thrikkakara North Thrikkakara S.O. 682021, Ernakulam [Pan: Aamfv9490R] Vs. Ito, Non Corporte Ward- 1(1), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee By: Ms. Binisha Baby, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.10.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 13.01.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm. The Assessee Did Not File Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18. As Per The Information Available With The Department, The Appellant Had Incurred Substantial Expenditure For Purchase Of Heavy Motor Vehicles. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Found That The Appellant Had Purchased Jcb & Tipper For Rs. 22,50,000/- & Rs. 27,81,379/-, Respectively.

For Appellant: Ms. Binisha Baby, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 250(6)Section 69C

Vasantham Silks, Palakkad vs. ITO, Ward-4, Palakkad

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

ITA 582/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vasantham Silks .......... Appellant A H Plaza Agali Post, Mannarkkad Taluk Palakkad 678581 [Pan: Aakfv4469L] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Palakkad .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri M.V. Venugopal, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Venugopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250(6)

Arif Industries Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow vs. CIT(A), Lucknow

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

ITA 638/LKW/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.638/Lkw/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Arif Industries Pvt Ltd V. Commissioner Of Income 2Nd Floor Metro City Centre, Tax Appeals/National Metro City, Paper Mill Faceless Appeal Centre Compound, Nishat Ganj, Delhi. Lucknow-226006. Pan:Aacca2048M अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rajeev Joshi, Ca प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09 09 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 28 10 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 44ASection 80

assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who sustained the action of the Assessing Officer. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. Page 3 of 7 3. Apropos to the grounds of appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made ... terms of the directions given in the said order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which was allowed by the Tribunal by virtue of the impugned order. The Tribunal took the view that the provisions of section 80IA(7) with regard

Byk Yog Adhyatmik Forum, Pune vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1401/PUN/2025[2026-27]Status: HeardITAT Pune28 Oct 2025AY 2026-27

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrabyk Yog Adhyatmik Forum Cit (Exemption), Pune Plot No.22, Cts No.15847 / 102, Vs. Aditya Nagar, Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad – 431001 Pan: Aalcb0251G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shubham N Rathi (Virtual) Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28-10-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-10-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N Rathi (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby cancelled.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that due to non- intimation of the notice by the accountant of the trust

Kai Ramakant Vishwanath Bejgamwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Nanded vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1913/PUN/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Oct 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

application for grant of approval u/s 80G of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(Exemption), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the assessee has filed voluminous details

Kai Ramakant Vishwanath Bejgamwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Nanded vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1912/PUN/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Oct 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

Navnirman Infracon Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 689/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, Addl. Sr. DR

Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(via)Section 56(2)(viia)

contacted the Tax Advocate to file the appeal. It was in this backdrop that there was delay of 337 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, Id. AR prayed to condone the delay. Ld. Sr DR opposed the condonation petition. 4. After considering the condonation petition

Kamalpur Jotekanuragarh S K U S Limited, Paschim Medinipur vs. ACIT, Circle 38, Midnapur

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

ITA 382/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 271FSection 272A(1)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Rival contentions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR submitted that the return of income