“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

Meenu Gupta, Meerut vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Meerut

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 4515/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year- 2022-23 Meenu Gupta Vs. Acit, Central Circle Meerut 214, Madhuban Colony, Baghpat Road Meerut 250002 Uttar Pradesh 250002 Pan No. Acrpg2700J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 65Section 65BSection 69Section 69B

vide his order dated 08-05-2025 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no cash, payment to M/s Shree Jee Enterprises which is evident from

Rajiv Kumar Choudhary, Bareilly vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(2)(4), Muzaffarnagar

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

ITA 3411/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2016-17 Rajiv Kumar Chaoudhary, Vs. Ito 141, Utsav Part-2, Ward- 3 (2)(4) Mahanagar Pilbhit Road, Muzaffarnagar Bareilly 243006 Uttar Pradesh Bareilly Pan No.Aftpc3123Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

appeal before the Ld. NFAC, who vide his order dated 17- 02-2025 dismissed the appeal against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5.None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, this appeal is being decided on the basis of material available on record and after hearing

Ajit Pal Singh Choudhary, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 43(1), Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3395/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwal Accoutant Member Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ajit Pal Singh Choudhary Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of A-139, Meera Bagh New Income Tax Circle 43(1) Delhi 110087 Pan No. Acrpc1266D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 151ASection 153CSection 156Section 157ASection 69

vide his order dated 28- 03-2025 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has raised the legal ground no.6 and stated that first notice u/s 148 was issued

Assystem Engineering Amd Operation Services, France vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3392/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Assystem Engineering & Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Operation Services Income Tax Circle-1(1) (1) Tour Egee 9-11 Allee De International Taxation Larche Courbevoie France- 92400 Pan No. Aajca2418E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 154(3)Section 234Section 234DSection 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)

grounds are disposed of. The Appeal is disposed of, accordingly.” 4. Aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 5. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the matter

Sicpa India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 22(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 330/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[ Sicpa India Private Limited, Asst. Cit, 308-312, Mercantile House, Circle -22(2), 15 K.G. Marg, Vs. Delhi. Delhi-110001. Pan-Aadcs6121L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Akash Singhal, Ca Department By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 28.11.2024 In Appeal No. Nfac/2019-20/10183865 Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) Dated 30.09.2022 For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Distribution Of Security Inks. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Appeal Was E-Filed On 15.02.2021 Declaring Total Income At Rs.6,74,74,000/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Taken Up For Scrutiny & The Order Was Passed U/S 143(3) On 30.09.2022 Wherein Disallowance Of Rs.23,09,391/- Was Made On Account Of Dividend Distributions Tax & Educational Cess Claimed By The Assessee As Sicpa India Private Limited Vs. Acit Expenses & Further Disallowance U/S 14A Of Rs.25,56,078/- Was Made & The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Assessed At Rs.7,71,05,940/-.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 270A

assessee and confirmed the additions made by the AO u/s 14A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking the following grounds of appeal: 1(a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing

Stercon Energy Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5798/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153C

same. In the first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee and, therefore, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Ld. AO has erred in passing an order u/s 143(3) of the Income

Stercon Energy Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle- 29, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5797/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153C

Stercon Energy Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5796/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153C

Ramesh Verma, Moradabad vs. ITO, 2(1), Moradabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5124/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalmr. Ramesh Verma, Income Tax Officer, Bhogpur Mithoni, Ward-2(1), Atal Mohalla, Mandi Chowk, Vs. Moradabad. Moradabad-244001 Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Acvpv3651M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mayank Patawarai, Adv. Shri Akash Ojha, Adv. Department By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 18.09.2024 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Moradabad/20293/2019-20 Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) Dated 14.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Had Filed His Return Of Income On 30.03.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,72,820/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass For Examination Of Cash Ramesh Verma Vs. Ito Deposits & Cash Withdrawals In The Bank Accounts. The Ao Has Observed That Assessee Is Maintaining Two Bank Accounts (I) With State Bank Of India & (Ii) With Prathma Bank. As Per The Ao, Total Cash Of Rs.71,12,000/- Were Deposited During The Year Which Were Alleged As Unexplained U/S 69A & Addition Was Made. In Addition To This, Further Addition Was Made On Account Of Other Deposit In Both The Bank Accounts.

Section 143(3)Section 69A

deleted by observing that the same is beyond the scope of limited scrutiny. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and against the facts of the case

Sahil Kohli, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-16, New Delhi

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 453/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250

submissions of the assessee, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeals:- ITA Nos.3283/Del/2023 & Others 1. “Whether on facts of the case

Sahil Kohil, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-16, Delhi

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 452/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250