“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

Dinesh Kumar Singhania, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 34(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1151/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

appeal was dismissed on account of non- prosecution. 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. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee

Dipak Kumar Hazra, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward 47(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1135/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 43B

appeal of the assessee subject to the direction. 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. Ground nos. 1,2,3,4 relate to the addition

M/S Rarity Agencies Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 9(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2341/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

with the assistance of the Ld. DR. I.T.A. No.: 2341/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Rarity Agencies Limited. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO in treating ... capital gain trading loss there from. On appeal, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the ld. AO. Aggrieved, assessees are in appeal before the Tribunal 5. Recently on 14.06.2022, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta passed a judgment in the case of Swati Bajaj and others

M/S. Enfield Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 142/KOL/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Oct 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 282Section 68

which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 147/143(3)/263/144 of the Act, dated 24.03.2014. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. Ld. CIT(A) NFAC erred in confirmation of addition to the tune ... accordingly, the appeal of the assessee stood 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. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the directors

Keshram, Village- Patwari vs. The ITO Ward- 5(2)(1), G Budh Nagar, Gautam Budh Nagar

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

ITA 2158/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2158/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2017-18) Keshram Through Legal Heir Shri Sunder Singh, Village Patwari Bisrakh, Gatam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh 203207 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Bqgpk-1567-D बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -5(2)(1), Gatam Buddha Nagar, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Uttar Pradesh 201303 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 24/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 10.01.2024, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 53 Days. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Supported By An Affidavit. After Perusal Of Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, But Is For The Reasons

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

however, the assessee neither filed any substantive reply nor produced evidence to explain the source of cash deposits. We observe that the appeal before the Tribunal has been filed by the legal heir of Shri Keshram, the assessee. However, it 3 is not emanating from records as to when Keshram

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Surat, Adajan vs. Shivlal Shamjibhai Ponkia, City Light Road, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 817/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsl. आयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By : No(S)

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 &2 - Shri Aashish Pophare, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

allowed, deleting the addition made by the A.O. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), now the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. However, at the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee has raised the following legal objection. “Notice issued u/s 148 as well as consequential

Dineshbhai Mulachandabhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1371/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1371/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Dineshbhai Mulachandabhai Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(1), बनाम/ Patel Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Vs. Patidar Faliyu, Bhestan Gam, Gate, Surat-395 001 Choryasi, Surat- 395 023 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bispp 4863 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 29/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2025

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

order of the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR for the assessee by referring to the contents in para-2 of the assessment order submitted that notice

Dipak Chhaganlal Naik L/H Amitaben Dipak Naik, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 1118/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1118/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Dipak Chhaganlal Naik Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(1), बनाम/ L/H Amitaben Dipak Naik Surat, Room No. 627, Aaykar Vs. 44, China Gate-2, B/Hgayatri Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 Mandir, Althan S.O, Althan, 001 Surat- 395 017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadhn 5872 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2025

Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 2(47)Section 250Section 50CSection 80C

appeal of the assessee and upheld the order of the AO. 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted the paper book containing computation of limitation period for issue of notice u/s.148 under new regime

Harshadbhai Maganbhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(3)(2), Surat

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

ITA 111/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.111/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 (Hybrid Hearing) Harshadbhai Maganbhai Patel Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3)(2), बनाम/ C-1007, Pratisha Tower, Surat, Anavil Business Center, Vs. Sarela Wadi, Ghod-Dod Road, Adajan Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat- 395 007 Surat-395 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adgpp 3387 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 24/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144(3)Section 250

confirmed the addition of Rs.1,65,37,512/- made by the AO. 7. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted the paper book containing copy of written submission filed before CIT(A), remand report, written submission

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(1), Surat vs. Bhanubhai Ranchhodbhai Asodaria, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1003/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsl. आयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By : No(S)

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 &2 - Shri Aashish Pophare, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Surat, Anavil Business Centre, Hazira Raod vs. Sharmishthaben Shivlal Ponkia, Umra, Bharthana B.O, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1002/SRT/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsl. आयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By : No(S)

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 &2 - Shri Aashish Pophare, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

No H 1043 Bhujabalapatnam Primary Agriculture Cooperative Credit Society Ltd, Krishna Dist vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gudiwada

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

ITA 426/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Tribunal. The Petitioner/Appellant Society Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, Wherein It Was Submitted That The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Was Sent To The Email Of Its Then Ar, Ca B.V. Rao, Instead Of Its Email "Krishnapacs085@Gmail.Com," As Had Been Requested By It. The Appellant Society Came To Know Of The Order Only When Itd Officials Called Upon It To Pay The Tax Arrears. It Further Submitted That, Due To The Above Circumstances Beyond Its Control & Prayed That The Delay Of 69 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal May Please Be Condoned In The Interest Of Justice & That The Appeal Be Decided On Merits.

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 80P(2)(a)

Ld.CIT(A)”) relating to the assessment year 2017-18. 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 69 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The petitioner/appellant society has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, wherein ... further submitted that, due to the above circumstances beyond its control and prayed that the delay of 69 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal may please be condoned in the interest of justice and that the appeal be decided on merits. 3. Dr. Aparna Villuri

The Rudrapaka Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited H1249, Machilipatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gudivada

ITA 162/VIZ/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

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

Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

sustained the additions made by the AO. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri ASRSS Siva Prasad, C.A. submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the additions made

Shri Shetrapaldada Aadthakkar Parivar De vs. Than Trust, Ahmedabadvs.the CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

ITA 404/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : - Shri Shetrapaldada Aadthakkar The Cit(Exemption) Parivar Devsthan Trust Vs. Vejalpur Ahmedabad. C/O. Divyang Shah & Co., Chartered Accountants 201, 2Nd Floor, Devashish Complex Nr.Regenta Central Atarim Hotel Off: Cg Road, Ahmedabad. Pan : Abbts 8509 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Divyang Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2025

For Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 12A

passed by the CIT(E) on first occasion which was rejected on the basis of non-furnishing of details, the applicant/appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal being ITA No. 1026/Ahd/2023, the applicant filed another application for registration under bonafide belief that the applicant/appellant will submit the requisite documents

Bharatbhai Dahyabhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1) Previously Circle-1(2)(1), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1484/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Ms Hasti Vyas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.DR

above facts this ground is dismissed…” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is the sole proprietor of M/s. Almitee Construction, engaged in civil contracting work

Neeraj Gupta, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1156/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, SR-DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

No.1156/Hyd/2025 2 2. At the outset, it is seen that there is a delay of 15 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition along with a copy of affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. It was submitted that the assessee ... No.1156/Hyd/2025 5 8. Still aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that the addition made under section 69A of the Act is wholly unjustified since there is no dispute regarding the ownership of the cash

Slr Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 544/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

actual work carried out by these sub-contractors. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. Pr. CIT, the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Learned Counsel for the assessee Shri A. Srinivas, Advocate, submitted that the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in invoking his powers of revision

Mukesh Kantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 811/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 68Section 69A

statement of facts. 5. Being aggrieved by the above dismissal order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced at Paragraph 2 above. 6. We have heard both the sides and have perused the material on 4 Assessment

M/S. Raman and Weil Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 6266/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhri & Raman & Weil Private Dy. Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1) Vs. Office No. 36/37, 3Rd Floor, Mittal 460, M.K. Road, Aayakar Chambers, Opp. Inox Theatre, Bhavan, Mumbai 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacr5065M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे/ Assessee By: Shri. Dharan Gandhi, Adv. /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri. Dharan Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana SR. DR

Section 12ASection 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 35A

Reshamwala V DCIT in ITA No. 2648/Mum/2022. ii. Mrunal H Shah Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 4878/Mum/2019. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us ld. AR has argued that the addition was made by the ld. AO on the basis of statements made

Raman and Weil Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 6265/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. Dharan Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana SR. DR

Section 12ASection 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 35A