“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

Aamina Charitable Trust, Pulwama vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh

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

ITA 231/ASR/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Farhan Showkat Peer, C. A

Section 12A(1)(ac)

under treatment and Mr. Imtiyaz Ahmad Bhat was busy looking after his old parents which is resulted in delay of filing of this appeal before the Tribunal by 16 days. He prayed for condonation of the delay for admission of the appeal to be heard on merits

Unteswar Singh, Meghalaya vs. Central Circle-2, Guwahati, Assam

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

ITA 377/GTY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AYs 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2018-19 dated 29.09.2024. 2. The Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 375/GTY/2025; AY 2013-14: “1. That the addition of Rs.3.50 crores is unsustainable ... result, the Appeal is decided as above.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee trades

Unteswar Singh, Nongpoh vs. Central Circle-2, Guwahati

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

ITA 376/GTY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

Unteshwar Singh, Meghalaya vs. Central Circle-2, Guwahati, Aayakar Bhawan, Christianbasti

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are partly

ITA 375/GTY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati26 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act') for AYs 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2018-19 dated 29.09.2024. 2. The Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 375/GTY/2025; AY 2013-14: “1. That the addition of Rs.3.50 crores is unsustainable ... result, the Appeal is decided as above." 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee trades

Barapali Service Cooperative Society Limited, Baragarh vs. ITO, Bargarh Ward, Bargarh

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

ITA 71/CTK/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

NFAC filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false. Ld. Sr. DR did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing ... appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 4. At the time of hearing before us, it was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay of 142 days in filing appeal

Barapali Service Cooperative Society Limited, Bargarh vs. ITO, Bargarh Ward, Bargarh

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

ITA 107/CTK/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Barapali Service Cooperative Society Limited, Bargarh vs. ITO, Bargarh Ward, Bargarh

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

ITA 106/CTK/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Hari Yamuna Sehyog Samiti, Himachal Pradesh vs. ITO Nahan, Himachal Pradesh

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1489/CHANDI/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1471/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2025-26 (Us/ 12Aa ) Hari Yamuna Sehyog Samiti, The Ito, बनाम Vikas Walia Building, Nahan Ward No. 7, Main Market, Vs. Paonta Sahib, Solan, Hp 173025 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aacah3504R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1489/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2025-26 (Us/ 80G ) Hari Yamuna Sehyog Samiti, The Ito, बनाम Vikas Walia Building, Nahan Ward No. 7, Main Market, Vs. Paonta Sahib, Solan, Hp 173025 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aacah3504R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1670/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2024-25 U/S 80G Hari Yamuna Sehyog Samiti, The Ito, बनाम Vikas Walia Building, Nahan Ward No. 7, Main Market, Vs. Paonta Sahib, Solan, Hp 173025 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aacah3504R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 80G

PCIT. 3. The Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 1255 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.1670/Chd/2025 for A.Y. 2024-24 (u/s 80G).. The Counsel of the Assessee has filed an application along with Affidavit on behalf of the Assessee, making

Hari Yamuna Sehyog Samiti, Himachal Pradesh vs. ITO Nahan, Himachal Pradesh

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1471/CHANDI/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 80G

Joint Commisioner of Income Tax(OSD) Circle 3(1)(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Nirma Chemical Works Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 164/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

established and no exempt income was earned. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is undisputed that the assessee

Nistala Sudha, Keonjhar vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 605/HYD/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No./605/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Nistala Sudha Vs. Ito Keonjhar, Odhisha Ward 9(1) Pan:Emcps9399C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri D. Parida, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M.

For Appellant: Shri D. Parida, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

name of the assessee. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, referring to the additional ground of appeal filed by the assessee submitted that the notice issued

Hemalatha Chervu, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward - 15(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1966/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1966/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Smt. Hemalatha Chervu Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 15 (1) Pan:Aodpc8304C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Akash Deshpande, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 06/11/2025, For The A.Y 2015-16. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Not Filed Her Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16. The Page 1 Of 11

For Appellant: Shri Akash Deshpande, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 69A

into bank account under section 69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the reopening of the assessment by issuing notice under section

Virchow Petrochemical Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1191/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Ms. U. Mini Chandran

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

gathering about the disposal of its appeal by the CIT(A), had, thereafter, involving no further loss of time, filed the present appeal before the Tribunal, which by the time involved a delay of 145 days. The Ld. AR to buttress the aforesaid facts, which had resulted in a bonafide

M/S. Lupin Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 9(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 3103/KOL/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

that the appeal order was sent to the email ID: itmsolution1@gmail.com dated 16.09.2025 which was erroneously skipped and therefore, could not file the appeal before the Tribunal within time. After perusing the same, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing ... admit the appeal for adjudication. ITA No.: 3103/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Lupin Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. 2. The Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Order of the Learned Income Tax Officer is arbitrary based on mere surmises

Jindal Commodities, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 43(2), Kolkata

In the result, the present appeal is dismissed

ITA 2905/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 5

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2012-13 dated 12.11.2025. 2. The Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the reassessment proceedings are bad in law as the same were initiated solely on borrowed satisfaction ... result, the present appeal is dismissed.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR brought it to our notice that in the similar case

Gobinda Adhikary, Kolkata, West Bengal vs. Ward 34(1), Kolkata, West Bengal

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

ITA 2802/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 69Section 69A

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2017-18 dated 29.09.2025. 2. The Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “Ground No. 1: Deletion of Addition under Section 69 A That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ... appeal was treated as infructuous and dismissed. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A), the Assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the case was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR. It was noted that

Jermels Accademy, Darjeeling vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Exemp, Siliguri

ITA 2750/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(ba)Section 12A(2)Section 139Section 144Section 2(15)Section 250

Jermels Accademy, Darjeeling vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Exemp, Siliguri

ITA 2749/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(ba)Section 12A(2)Section 139Section 144Section 2(15)Section 250

Jermels Accademy, Darjeeling vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Exemp, Siliguri

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the Assessee are partly

ITA 2748/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(ba)Section 12A(2)Section 139Section 144Section 2(15)Section 250

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for AY 2017-18 dated 02.09.2025 and 03.09.2025. 2. The Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 2748/KOL/2025: “1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... result, the appeal filed by the appellant is Dismissed." Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. It was stated that the provisions of section

Mark Steels Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 3(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2603/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2011-12 dated 13.10.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in having upheld the reopening of the assessment merely on borrowed satisfaction ... result Appeal of the Appellant is dismissed. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that in this case