“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

ACIT (Cir.) - 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bhandar Power Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1908/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Bhandar Power Ltd. Income Tax, 14Th Floor, Essar House, Circle 6(1)(2), 11, K. K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai - 400034 (Pan: Aaacb6693B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta, Fca & Shri Tarang Mehta, Advocate Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit 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 Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Delhi, Vide Order Dated 25.01.2018 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ito 6(1)(4), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 20.12.2016, For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Deleting The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Income Tax Act Of Rs. 203,13,43,740/-Without Considering The Fact That The Provisions Of Section 801A(10) Is Clearly Attracted In This Case Hence The Assessee Is Not Eligible For Claiming Deduction U/S 801A Of The Income Tax Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, FCA and Shri Tarang Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 801ASection 801A(10)Section 80I

judicial precedents relied upon by the ld. Assessing Officer. 7. Aggrieved by the outcome of the first appellate order, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal contending that decision rendered by ld. CIT(A) in favour of the assessee is without going into the substance of the PPA and without

Franklin Templeton Internaitoanl Services (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 3(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 stands partly allowed

ITA 7216/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 133(6)Section 92D

making addition in the hands of the assessee at ₹ 9,55,43,693/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, assessee is on appeal before the Tribunal. 17 ITA 6986/Mum/2011 & 7216/Mum/2012; A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09 Franklin Templeton International Services (India) Private Limited 7. The Ld.AR are submitted that Ground ... service, and the department by accepting the said order of the 'DRP' for A.Y. 2011-12 by not carrying the matter in further appeal before the Tribunal, had thus allowed it to attain finality. We further find that in the assessee's own case for the immediately succeeding year

Franklin Templeton International Services (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 3(1)(OSD), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 stands partly allowed

ITA 6986/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 133(6)Section 92D

Gunjan Rungta, Kushinagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Kushinagar

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

ITA 50/VNS/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Gunjan Rungta V. The Income Tax Officer Onkar Vatika Colony Ward 2(4) Padrauna, Kushinagar (U.P) Kushinagar Tan/Pan:Agmpr5334G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate Respondent By: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 15.06.2022, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That During The Year Under Consideration The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property For A Consideration Of Rs.30,50,000/-. To Examine This Transaction, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. However, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee To The Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. Thereafter, The

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 69

justice. 3.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that there is a delay of 73 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated Nil for condonation of delay, stating therein that during the relevant period ... therefore, due to complete disturbance in the family, the matter could not be communicated to the Counsel for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has also filed Death Certificate dated 05.08.2022 issued by Department of Medical and Health, Nagar Palika Parishad Padrauna, certifying the death of Jagdamba Prasad

Prakash Gupta, Gopalganj vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2 (4), Siwan

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

ITA 206/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I.T.A. No.: 206/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Prakash Gupta. “1. That on the facts and circumstances ... stated in the grounds of appeal. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the appeal was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR. It is stated in Ground

Navras School of Performing Arts, Patna vs. CIT(E)Patna, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 194/PAT/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12A

order passed by the authority below. It was further mentioned in the application that new Advocate, therefore, was appointed and ultimately was filed appeal before the Tribunal. 4. After considering the application for condonation of delay and perusing the materials available on record, we are not satisfied with the above

Sri Kanaka Mahalakshmi Ammavari Temple, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Vijayawada

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

ITA 234/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.234/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Section 143(1)Section 154

outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 222 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee dated 06.08.2025, along with ... appeal with delay of 222 days. 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR strongly objected for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the contents of the affidavit filed

Aditi Steels, Bhavnagar vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1, Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri D.K Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

assessee on merits as not maintainable. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have perused the material available on record and considered the submissions of the Ld. Counsel. It is observed that the Asst. Year

Rakesh Jayantibhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1301/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 58Section 68

confirmed. This ground of appeal is partly allowed…” 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 had received a total amount of ₹10,80,000/- as an unsecured

Ashok Amarnath Agrawal, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1078/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 147Section 250Section 271ASection 68

assessee, upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. ITA Nos. 1077 & 1078/Ahd/2025 Ashok Amarnath Agrawal Vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 - 3– 7. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted ... confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 14. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act were initiated while framing assessment and the penalty

Ashok Amarnath Agrawal, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1077/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 147Section 250Section 271ASection 68

Annapurna Nagari Sahkari Pathsanstha Maryadit, Jalgaon vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Jalgaon

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

ITA 314/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati (virtually)

Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. 4 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1] The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction u/s 80P of Rs.1

Lear Automotive India P. Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune

ITA 554/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna &For Respondent: Shri Prakash L. Pathade

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Aggrieved by the adjustment sustained with respect to the allocation of RHQ charges, the assessee has presented the present appeal before the Tribunal in this second round of proceedings by raising the following grounds of appeal

Narendar Aale, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-11(5), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/HYD/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.954/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2021-22) Shri Narendar Aale, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward 11(5), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Amxpa3425A (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Villa Mouni Mani Kumar, Advocate. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Inturi Rama Rao : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad Dated 07.03.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. The Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2021-22 Was Filed On 23.03.2022 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5,00,830/-. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment Vide Order Dated 22.12.2022 Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”)

For Appellant: Shri Villa Mouni Mani KumarFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

order, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution in limine. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. I find that the learned

Telangana State Board of Intermediate Education, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

ITA 826/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, Darshan JakhariaFor Respondent: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR

Section 101Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H YDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH

Bharat Kumar Jain Premchand, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle - 1(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 741/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.741/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2022-23) Shri Bharat Kumar Jain Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Premchand, Tax, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aqvpp1066C (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: None रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Inturi Rama Rao : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad [Cit(A)] Dated 21.02.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2022-23 On 30.07.2022 Declaring Income Of Rs.3,86,750/-. The Telangana State Police Seized Cash Of Rs.7,35,000/- From The Assessee After Following

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 250(6)

before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal exparte for non prosecution. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. None appeared on behalf of assessee. After hearing the Ld. DR, I find that the learned

Vummenthala Sagar Reddy, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-2, Karimnagar

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

ITA 681/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.681/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Vummenthala Sagar Reddy, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad. Ward-2, Pan: Asopv9337K Karimnagar. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Inturi Rama Rao : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 19.02.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. The Return Of Income For The Asst. Year 2017-18 Was Filed On 22.02.2018 & Revised The Same On 08.08.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,88,150/-. The Assessee Had Deposited Cash To The Tune Of Rs.26,53,153/- In His Bank Account During F.Y. 2016-17. Ita No.681/Hyd/2025 2

For Appellant: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

vide the impugned order dismissed after considering the submissions made before him as not maintainable. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that one more opportunity be provided to present his case once again before

Saadnakari Hazarathaiah, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Proddatur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 660/HYD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.660/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) Shri Sadnakari Hazarathaiah, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad. Ward-1, Pan: Adfph7103R Proddatur. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Inturi Rama Rao : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 29.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 145Section 147Section 250Section 68

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. ITA No.660/Hyd/2025 3 4. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. It is contended by the learned counsel for the assessee before us that the Assessing Officer in the original assessment, rejected the books ... rival submissions of both the parties. At the outset, I find that there is a delay of 440 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed condonation petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that he was not aware of the order passed

Venkata Subba Reddy Karnati, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Proddatur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 637/HYD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.637/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) Shri Venkata Subba Reddy Income Tax Officer, Vs. Karnati, Ward-1, Hyderabad. Proddatur. Pan:Ahjpv4271E (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Inturi Rama Rao : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 07.09.2023

For Appellant: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 145Section 147Section 250Section 68

vide impugned order dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. It is contended by the learned counsel for the assessee before us that the Assessing Officer in the original assessment, rejected the books ... rival submissions of both the parties. At the outset, I find that there is a delay of 496 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed condonation petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that he was not aware of the order passed

Aare Venkata Ramanaiah, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Proddatur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 633/HYD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.633/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) Shri Aare Venkata Ramanaiah, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad. Ward-1, Pan: Aoopr0993M Proddatur. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Inturi Rama Rao : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 10.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 145Section 147Section 250Section 68

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. ITA No.633/Hyd/2025 3 4. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. It is contended by the learned counsel for the assessee before us that the Assessing Officer in the original assessment, rejected the books ... rival submissions of both the parties. At the outset, I find that there is a delay of 373 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed condonation petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that he was not aware of the order passed