“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

Swaty Mehta, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-17, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed as

ITA 2551/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2549/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Sonia Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2551/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Swaty Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153D

part of the assessees previous Counsel M/s Malhotra Rajesh & Associates, CAs who misguided the assessee in taking appropriate action to file the appeal before the Tribunal. It is also stated that the assessee was informed by the previous Counsel that there will be no demand left after the impugned appellate ... view that the assessees were prevented with sufficient cause in filing the appeal with delay. Thus, the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal by both these assessees is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing on merits. 3. Coming to merits, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee

Sonia Mehta, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-17, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed as

ITA 2549/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Section 153D

Best City Projects India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 4(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5294/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2008-09] M/S Best City Projects India Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Pvt. Ltd. Room No.385A, C.R. Building, Plot No.H-8, 1St Floor, Best Vs New Delhi110002 Plaza, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi-110034 Pan-Aaccb7635D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor, Shri Shivam Yadav Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocates. Revenue By Ms. Rajinder Kaur, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.10.2025

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153ASection 153BSection 153DSection 254Section 68

successful and the CIT (A) confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, being ITA No. 263/Del/2004. By an order dated 31.07.2009, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the AO to re examine the nature of the expenditure

ACIT, CC- 15, New Delhi vs. Saloni Narang, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1496/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2012-13] Asst. Commissioner Of Income Saloni Narang, Tax, Central Circle-15, 5, Dr. G.G. Narang Marg, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Vs Cavalary Lane, Centre, Jhandewalan Ext. Delhi-110007 New Delhi-110055 Pan-Aafpn2692C Appellant Respondent Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Rajinder Kaur, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.10.2025

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 69A

held that even dehors Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963,it is open to the respondent in an appeal before the Tribunal to raise new grounds in defense of the order appealed against ,noting that the Tribunal has inherent powers ... available to the assessee. 11. Even de hors Rule 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, it is open to the respondent in an appeal before the Tribunal to raise a new ground in defence of the order appealed against. It has been so held by the Supreme Court in Hukam

Shri Bhama Punja Bharai, Junagadh vs. The ACIT Central Circle 2, Rajkot

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 590/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hybrid Hearing) Assessment Year: (2021-22) Bhama Punja Bharai Vs. Acit Circle-2, Rajkot Near Kuvav Talav, Grofed Road, Azad Aaykar Bhawan, Race Chowk S.O. Junagadh- 362710 Course Road, Rajkot-360001 Pan : Dvxpb 2168 H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Adjournment Application सुनवाई क" तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 22/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per,Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Ahmedabad/ National Faceless Appeal, Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] 24.01.2025 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed U/S.144 R.W.S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In-After Referred To As “The Act”) Relevant To The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2.When The Matter Was Called For Hearing, I Note That The Assessee, Submitted By Way Of Affidavit That The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Belatedly. I Have Gone Through The Affidavit Filed In This Regard Citing Reasons For Condonation Of Delay & I Note That Assessee Urged For A Benign View & Sought Condonation Of Delay Of 182 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. A Perusal Of The

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Adjournment Application

Section 144

delay, and I note that assessee urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay of 182 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. A perusal of the ITA 590 RJT 2025 Bhama Punja Bharai affidavit gives me an impression of existence of mitigating circumstances to enable

Kamlesh Bharatkumar Ranpara, Rajkot vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 583/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiareata /Ita No. 583/Rjt/2025 (Feratzorat/A Sessment Year: (2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Dixit, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

citing reasons for condonation of delay, and urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay of 507 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue, opposed the prayer of assessee to condone the delay. A perusal

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune, Swargate vs. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 825/PUN/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Oct 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake

Section 10Section 10(46)Section 143(1)

observing as under: 4 CO No.19/PUN/2025 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) has erred in allowing claim of exemption

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalgaon vs. Taradevi Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon

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

ITA 499/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya and Tushar NagoriFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 69C

already deleted by him. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decision of Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi

Matushri Lilbai Maganlal Gala Charitable Trust, Thane vs. DCIT (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1134/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandramatushri Lilbai Maganlal Gala Cit(Exemption), Pune Charitable Trust Gala No.315, Building No.R3, Vs. Samarth Chs, Kharton Road, Opp. Dadoji Konddev Stadium, Thane (West) – 400601 Pan: Aadtm4064H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh S Athavale (Virtually) Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-10-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S Athavale (virtually)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 by raising the following grounds: 1. The learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application filed in Form 10AB under clause (iii) of Section

Rajesh Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 25(3), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1898/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: The Learned Cit(A), Who Sustained The Order Of The Assessing Officer, Granting Partial Relief. The Assessee Is Now In Further Appeal Before The Tribunal.

Section 143(1)Section 250

appeal before the learned CIT(A), who sustained the order of the Assessing Officer, granting partial relief. The assessee is now in further appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that grounds No. 1 and 2 are not pressed. Therefore

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Kolkata vs. Raic Integrated Sponge & Power Private Limited, Kolkata

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed being devoid of merits

ITA 1880/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Udayan Dasgupta & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No. 1879/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 & I.T.A. No. 1880/Kol/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,………Appellant Central Circle-1(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 315, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Raic Integrated Sponge & Power Private Limited,………………………………………………..Respondent 25, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata-700013 [Pan: Aaccb3462A Appearances By: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 24, 2025 O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 153ASection 250

restricted to Rs.37,95,233/-. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed”. 14. Now the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds contained in the memo of appeal. 15. The Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the fact that the assessee has purchased COAL

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Raic Integrated Sponge & Power Private Limited, Kolkata

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed being devoid of merits

ITA 1879/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 153ASection 250

Vishal Krishna, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-10(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2258/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2258/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vishal Krishna, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Old No. T-27, New No. T-3, Income Tax, 12Th Street, Anna Nagar S.O., Non Corporate Circle 10(1), Chennai 600 040. Chennai. [Pan: Aagpv0851L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Vaitheeswaran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.P. Solomon, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 105 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We

For Appellant: Shri K. Vaitheeswaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

delay as well as deciding the issues 4 I.T.A. No.2258/Chny/25 raised in the appeal on merits. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld. AR Shri K. Vaitheeswaran, Advocate submits that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the short delay

K274 Uthukuli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Tirupur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Tirupur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2133/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2133/Chny/2025 यनिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21 M/S. K274 Uthukuli Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Cooperative Vs. Ward 1(2), Credit Society Ltd., Tirupur 1. Uttukuli Post, Uttukuli, Tirupur – 638 751 Pan: Aabak 4347E (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. R. Sumedha, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.P. Solomon, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025

For Appellant: Ms. R. Sumedha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

assessee by upholding the order of the AO. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the deposits were made with EDCC bank, which is a co-operative society registered under the Tamil

Vijay Kumar Sharma, Muzaffarnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Muzaffarnagar

Appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 5401/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Gourav Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

sides and perused the records. At the threshold, it is noted that there is a delay of 212 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It was the contention of the assessee that assessee had filed the appeal through his counsel and deposited Tribunal ... added the same in the hands of the assessee. However, in appeal, Ld. First Appellate Authority sustained the addition. Against the above, assessee appealed before the Tribunal. 4. Upon careful consideration, I note that it was the contention of the assessee before the AO, that the addition made

Nkc Projects Private Limited, Jaipur vs. PCIT Delhi-4, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2804/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

revision order passed while holding the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. Against such order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, at the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee submits that the Ld. PCIT has invoked the provisions of section

DCIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi vs. Parveen Aggarwal, Gurgaon

Accordingly the same are hereby upheld. Grounds of appeal Nos. 1 & 2 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 197/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Parveen Aggarwal, Vs Acit, Ma-1/7, 3D, Garden Central Circle-14, Estate, M.G.Road, Gurgaon New Delhi Haryana-122002. Pan-Aahpa0660R Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2012-13] Dcit, Vs Parveen Aggarwal, Central Circle-14, Ma-1/7, 3D, Garden New Delhi Estate, M.G.Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002. Pan-Aahpa0660R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri K.Sampath, Adv. & Shri V.Rajkumar, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.10.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Cross-Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)- 27, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 28.11.2022 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-27/10482/2019-20 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dt. 31.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13. Ita Nos.178 & 197/Del/2023

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

balance addition of INR 9,49,75,319/- was deleted. 3. Against the said order, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal wherein Revenue has challenged the deletion of additions by taking the following grounds of appeal:- (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

Parveen Aggarwal, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle-14, New Delhi

Accordingly the same are hereby upheld. Grounds of appeal Nos. 1 & 2 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 178/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Manisha Kumari, Patna vs. Ward-5(2), Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 286/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.286/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Manisha Kumari…..……………..………. …………………....Appellant 5, Indrapuri, Keshri Nagar, Indrapuri, Patna, Pin-800024. Bihar.. [Pan: Afmpk0739D] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(2), Patna ......…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shikesh Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 23, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.11.2024 Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Relating To The Assessment Year 2016–17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Who Filed A Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of ₹2,29,470 For The Assessment Year 2016–17. Based On Information That Income To The Tune Of ₹7,50,000 Had Escaped Assessment, The Assessing Officer Recorded Reasons For Reopening The Case & Obtained The Necessary Approval From The Competent Authority. Consequently, Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee. No Return Of Income Was Filed In Response To The Said Notice. Thereafter, Notices Under Section 142(1) Along With

Section 142(1)Section 148

consecutive dates of hearing. Consequently, the learned CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal challenging the ex parte dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A). At the time of hearing, it was also submitted that there ... delay of 132 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. An application for condonation of delay along with supporting reasons was filed by the assessee. We have considered the submissions and perused the reasons stated in the condonation petition. Being satisfied that the delay was caused due to reasonable

Jayanti S Kundhadiya, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Pune vs. Patil Construction and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 231/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 80

confirmed. This ground of appeal is partly allowed.” 14. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT ... work, defect liability of the accidents to persons in relation to Workman Compensation Act, indemnity insurance of the workmen employed. The CIT (Appeal) and the Tribunal considering such aspects of the tendered agreement, concurrently held that the assessee has entered into a development of infrastructure facility agreement