← All Phrases

“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

Anupam Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 765/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalanupam Sharma, Flat No. 1-994 Block No. B-24, Rangoli Garden Near Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur 302 021 Pan No.: Awpps 0767D ...... Appellant

For Appellant: Mr. Ashish Khandelwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT- Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 5

appellate order of the Ld. CIT (A) was passed on 17.01.2025 and was served on the same day via email; consequently, the appeal before the Tribunal was required to be filed on or before 31.03.2025, but actually filed on 09.05.2025. • The assessee promptly informed the legal counsel, Shri Manish Tatiwala

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Niranjan Patidar, Neemuch

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 438/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

assessee and thereby allowed the appeal. Now, aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT (A), the revenue has come in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced herein above. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 246/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 250

record, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT (A), the assessee has come in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced herein above. 6. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted his written submission

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 245/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 250

record, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT (A), the assessee has come in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced herein above. 6. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted his written submission

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 244/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 250

record, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT (A), the assessee has come in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced herein above. 6. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted his written submission

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 243/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 250

record, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT (A), the assessee has come in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced herein above. 6 ITA No. 243 Το 246/JPR/2025 RMS Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur

Pata Trans Himalayan Empowerment Society, Himachal Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Kullu, Himachal Pradesh

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 805/CHANDI/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 804 & 805/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24 Pata Trans Himalayan Empowerment The Ito, Society, Khangechenapa House Darcha Vs Ward – Kullu, Dangama, Darcha Sumdo, (H.P.). Lahaul & Spiti (Hp). "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aajap8705D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 Virtual Hearing O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5Section 80G

grant of registration u/s 80G. When impugned order dated 15.04.2025 was brought to the notice of new counsel for filing an appeal before the Tribunal, only then it came to the notice of the assessee that it should have challenged the earlier order in appeal because grant of registration

Pata Trans Himalayan Empowerment Society, Himachal Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Kullu, Himachal Pradesh

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 804/CHANDI/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 804 & 805/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24 Pata Trans Himalayan Empowerment The Ito, Society, Khangechenapa House Darcha Vs Ward – Kullu, Dangama, Darcha Sumdo, (H.P.). Lahaul & Spiti (Hp). "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aajap8705D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 Virtual Hearing O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5Section 80G

grant of registration u/s 80G. When impugned order dated 15.04.2025 was brought to the notice of new counsel for filing an appeal before the Tribunal, only then it came to the notice of the assessee that it should have challenged the earlier order in appeal because grant of registration

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions) Circle-2, Chandigarh vs. Shri Shiv Narain Sidheswar Mandir Bagh Sanatan Dharam Sabha, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 633/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 633/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Dcit (Exemptions), Shri Shiv Narain Sidheswar Mandir Circle – 2, Chandigarh. Vs Bagh Sanatan Dharam Sabha, Gurudwara Road, Gurgaon. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacts6273M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Arjun Chaturvedi, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 Virtual Hearing O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Chaturvedi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 11(2)

Date of Hearing : 07.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 VIRTUAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the ld.CIT (A)’] dated 21.02.2025 passed for assessment year

Ceigall India Limited, Ludhiana vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 540/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur, CIT, DR(Virtual)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

High Court in case of KanubhaiVanmalibhai Patel[2025] 178 taxmann.com 133 (Gujarat)has held as under: 18. Being aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal after considering the submissions of both the sides held as under: "13. We find that though, it was accepted by ld PCIT

Gurmit Singh S/O Sh. Balvir Singh, Barnala vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Barnala

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for Statistical

ITA 448/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 448/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gurmit Singh, Ito, बनाम H. No. 599, T Point, Ward 1, Ward No. 17, Barnala Vs. Opp. Ge Cinema, Barnala, Punjab 148101 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Gumps7154D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Aman Patri, Advocate, राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Varadhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.06.2024 Of Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For A.Y. 2018-19. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Sh. Aman Patri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Varadhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 246A

hearing of the said appeal. 3. The Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 207 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. The Counsel of the Assessee has filed an application alongwith Affidavit on behalf of the Assessee, making prayer for condonation of delay

Pankajkumar Amrutlal Patel, Unjha, Mehsana, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Patan, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1500/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Divya Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271A(1)(d)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

asessee against the said penalty is dismissed. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 4– 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Counsel

Royal Fincomm Private Limited, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Ward 4(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 648/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merit. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The proceedings u/s 147 having been conducted without jurisdiction are bad in law as the registered ... hereby dismissed. 7. In result appeal is dismissed.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The assessee sought adjournment but as the reasons were not justified on the basis of the facts of the case, therefore

M/S. 45 Bus Route Owner Association, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 33(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 272/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 31.03.2022. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that Ld. CIT (A) also erred in passing the appellate order ex-parte without providing ... interference in the order of the Ld. AO. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. I.T.A. No.: 272/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s. 45 Bus Route Owner Association. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the record

Keshvan Jewellers, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 32, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1530/KOL/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1530/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Keshvan Jewellers………….…………………....…………………....Appellant 80, Burtolla Street, Barabazar, Kol-7. [Pan: Aaefk3801F] Vs. Acit, Circle-32, Kolkata..……………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. N. Barnwal, Cit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 13, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 21.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹ 74,81,790/-. During The Course Of Scrutiny Proceedings Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act, The Assessing Officer Determined The Total Income At ₹2,77,84,400. The Addition Was Made On Account Of Disallowance Of Loss Claimed In The Manufacturing Process, Amounting To ₹ 2,03,02,614. The Assessing Officer Observed That The Assessee Had Claimed A Process-Loss Of About 3.38% Of The Value Of Goods

Section 194CSection 250Section 40

despite service of notices, and the order of the Assessing Officer was sustained in full. 4. The assessee has now filed the present appeal before the Tribunal contending that both the orders below were passed ex parte without granting a fair and proper opportunity of hearing. There was also

Raghavan, Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Ncc-22(1), Tambaram

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

ITA 1776/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1776/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Raghavan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 3503, Bay View House, Hiraranan, Non Corporate Circle 22(1). 5/63, Omr, Egattur, Thazambur, Tambaram, Chennai. Kanchipuram District, Tamil Nadu. 600 130 [Pan:Ajjpv9178L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.06.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Raised 12 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is 2

For Appellant: Shri Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(2)(b)Section 274

Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. submits that the ld. CIT(A) failed to note the fact that there is no under reporting of income. He submits that the assessee

DCIT, Cen Cir 2(2), Chennai vs. Anbezhil Suryaraj Kumar, Chennai

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

ITA 1676/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1676/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Anbezhil Suryaraj Kumar, Flat No. G.2, Aarudhira Flats, 4Th Street, Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. Chennai. [Pan:Aetpa4862K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 9 Days. The Dcit Central Circle 2(2), Chennai Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Appellant-

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 132Section 153ASection 54

deduction claimed under sections 54 & 54F of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Appellant-Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The ld. DR Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT submits that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Assessing Officer

Shamsundar Heramba Naik, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1564/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Mr.Shamsundar Heramba Naik, Vs. Dcit - 3(3)(1), No.1/1, F-3, Petals, Chinnappa Garden Link Hmt Building, Road Benson Town, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 046,Karnataka. Pan : Afqps 8488 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S,Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S,JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(1)Section 24

against the income from the relevant house property. Accordingly, he dismissed appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned DR relied on the Order of learned CIT(A) and submitted that matter may be remitted back

Adil Mohammed Yusuf Patel, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 20(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5027/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

time of hearing of appeal.. 4. It is brought to our notice that there is delay of 105 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and assessee has filed an application for seeking condonation of delay alongwith affidavit and the same are extracted below:- “Health Condition of Mother ... application for seeking condonation of delay. At the outset, Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was not intentional and the circumstances were beyond the control of the assessee because the mother of assessee was suffering from cancer during

Sadhana Annasaheb Sonwane, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1636/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year:2013-14 Sadhana Annasabeh Sonwane Vs Ito Ward 29(3)(2), Mumbai 502/B, Sai Regency, Bhoir Nagar, Vashi Railway Station, Vidyalaya Marg, Mulund (E), 3X7X+Gqp, 3Rd & 4Th Floor, Mumbai 400081 6Th Tower, Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400703 (Pan: Aqsps7089R) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Sanjeev Brahme, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfca/S/250/2024-25/1072025693(1), Dated 09.01.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ito-W-29(3)(2) U/S.143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 29.03.2016 For Ay 2013-14. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “(I) The Cit(A) Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Has Erred In Confirming The Order Of Assessing Officer. (Ii) The Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Has Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Assessing Officer, Thereby Confirming The Denial Of The Benefit Under Section 54F.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Brahme, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 54F(1)

hence made the addition by disallowing the same. In first appeal, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the said disallowance. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 Sadhana Annasabeh Sonwane AY 2013-14 4. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee placed a paper book containing the 23 pages