← 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

Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, Maharajgunj vs. ITO., Ward-7(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1282/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1282/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Maharajgunj, Hyderabad. Ward 7(2), Pan: Aaypa1566B Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Sashank Dundu, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2025 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 18.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 143(3)

were made out of cash balance as on 08.11.2018. 4. Being aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A) and also filed a copy

Srinivas Arra, Karimnagar vs. ITO., Ward-2, Karimnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1184/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1184/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Srinivas Arra, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2, Karimnagar. Karimnagar. Pan: Aespa4907Q (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P. Vinod, 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/O R D E R 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 08.11.2024 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 A.Y. 2017-18 Was Filed On 30.03.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,80,730/-. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment Vide Order Dated 27.09.2021 Passed U/S.147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The

For Appellant: Shri P. Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 147Section 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. At the outset, I find that there is a delay of 169 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee ... approached counsel on 14.07.2025 and logging into the income tax portal, the assessee came know about the impugned order and immediately filed appeal before the Tribunal, hence the delay occurred. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, having ITA No.1184/Hyd/2025 3 regard to the averments made

Mandavilli Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1136/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1136/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-17) Shri Mandavilli Veera Venkata Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Tax, Circle 6(1), Hyderabad. Satyanarayana, Hyderabad. Pan: Aflpm8942M (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, 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 National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 26.06.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. The Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2016-17 Was Filed On 30.03.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.20,85,590/-. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment Vide Order Dated 18.12.2018 Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor 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

Salahuddin Mohammed, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1047/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1047/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Salahuddin Mohd. Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward 11(1) Pan: Adgpm5833N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Hemalatha K राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Salahuddin Mohammed, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) (“Ld.Cit(A)”) Dated 10.08.2024 For The A.Y 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That There Is A Delay Of 231 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit

For Appellant: CA Hemalatha KFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

outset, it is seen that there is a delay of 231 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit, Page 1 of 6 ITA No 1047 of 2025 Salahuddin Mohammed Secunderabad explaining the reasons ... delay in filing of the appeal. Applying the above ratio, we are satisfied that the delay of 231 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal was due to genuine medical reasons beyond the control of the assessee. Considering also the assessee’s advanced age, we hold that the explanation

Mubarak Baig Mogal, Chitoor vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Tirupati

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

ITA 1397/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1397/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Mubarak Baig Mogal, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Chitoor. Ward 1(1), Tirupati. Pan: Ayjpm5864B (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Snsr Chinmai, Advocate. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Order Of Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Pune [Cit(A)] Dated 15.02.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income From Business. Thw Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2017-18 Was Filed On 05.02.2018 Declaring Total Income At Rs.4,62,760/-. The Assessment Was Completed By The Ito, Ward 1(1), Tirupati On 19.12.2019 U/S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Determining The Total Income At Rs.14,90,557/-. While

For Appellant: SNSR Chinmai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR
Section 144

confirmed the addition of Rs.13,79,440/-. 4. Being aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. I find that the impugned order passed by the Learned

Sankari Lorry Urimaiyalargal Sangam, Sankari vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Slem

ITA 384/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 383 & 384/Chny/2024 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Krishna Kumar, J.C.I.T
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

appeal, after considering the submissions, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld.AR Shri T.Vasudevan, Advocate submits that the amount of Subscription, Entrance Fee, Donation from Existing and New members and Five Rupee

Sankari Lorry Urimaiyalargal, Sankari vs. DCIT Circle-2, Salem

ITA 383/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 383 & 384/Chny/2024 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Krishna Kumar, J.C.I.T
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

appeal, after considering the submissions, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld.AR Shri T.Vasudevan, Advocate submits that the amount of Subscription, Entrance Fee, Donation from Existing and New members and Five Rupee

Hi-Tech Engineers, Mumbai vs. Central Circle 5(1), Bandra Mumbai

ITA 3166/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bhavik ChhedaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra
Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(2)(a)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 270A(9)(f)Section 69C

preferred appeal before the CIT(A) which was dismissed vide Order, dated 30/03/2025. 8. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced at Paragraph 2 Assessment Year 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 above. 9. During the course of hearing it was contended

Hi-Tech Engineers, Mumbai vs. Central Circle 5(1), Bandra East, Mumbai

ITA 3165/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bhavik ChhedaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra
Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(2)(a)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 270A(9)(f)Section 69C

preferred appeal before the CIT(A) which was dismissed vide Order, dated 30/03/2025. 8. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced at Paragraph 2 Assessment Year 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 above. 9. During the course of hearing it was contended

Income Tax Officer-1(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Golden Express Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3039/MUM/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68

thereby sustaining the addition to the tune of Rs. 10,99,23,346/-. Both the assessee and the revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 4. The ld. AR during the course of hearing submitted the books of account of the assessee

Sugee Seven Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 2(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 2316/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

therefore, appellant is deemed to be assessee in default. Accordingly, all the grounds are rejected.” 4. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. AR at the outset submitted that the definition of "Specified Agreement" as contained in section 45(5A) states that the term means

Sugee Seven Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 2(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 2315/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

therefore, appellant is deemed to be assessee in default. Accordingly, all the grounds are rejected.” 4. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. AR at the outset submitted that the definition of "Specified Agreement" as contained in section 45(5A) states that the term means

Sugee Seven Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 2(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 2314/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

therefore, appellant is deemed to be assessee in default. Accordingly, all the grounds are rejected.” 4. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. AR at the outset submitted that the definition of "Specified Agreement" as contained in section 45(5A) states that the term means

Sugee Seven Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 2(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 2313/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

therefore, appellant is deemed to be assessee in default. Accordingly, all the grounds are rejected.” 4. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. AR at the outset submitted that the definition of "Specified Agreement" as contained in section 45(5A) states that the term means

Goldman Sachs (Singapore) Pte, Singapore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Internation Tax)-2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2063/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar (VirtuallyFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 250

brought forward loss. On further appeal the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Goldman Sachs (Singapore) Pte. 3. The ld. AR at the outset submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench

Goldman Sachs (Singapore) Pte, Singapore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Internation Tax)-2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2062/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar (VirtuallyFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 250

brought forward loss. On further appeal the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Goldman Sachs (Singapore) Pte. 3. The ld. AR at the outset submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench

Golden Express Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

ITA 1569/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68

thereby sustaining the addition to the tune of Rs. 10,99,23,346/-. Both the assessee and the revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 4. The ld. AR during the course of hearing submitted the books of account of the assessee

Pracheen Shri Aggarwal Digamber Jain Panchayat Delhi, Delhi vs. CIT(Exemption), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed for

ITA 3542/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Pracheen Shri Aggarwal Vs The Commissioner Of Income Digamber Jain Panchayat Tax (Exemption) Delhi, Civic Centre, 2515-17, Dharampura, Delhi- Minto Road, New Delhi 110006 Pan: Aabap2564J Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Ravi Pratap Mall, Adv& Sh. Uma Shankar, Adv Revenue By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 07/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/10/2025 Order

Section 80G

dated 28/03/2024on the ground that the application has not been filed on time. Aggrieved by the order dated 28/03/2024, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No. Pracheen Shri Agarwal Digamber Jain Vs. CIT(E) 1673/Del/2024. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 20/08/2024

Air Con Systems(India) Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5325/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nITA No.5325/Del/2024\n(ASSESSMENT YEAR 2020-21)\n\nM/s Air Con Systems (India)\nPvt. Ltd.\nA-2/40F/F, Safdarjung\nDevelopment Area,\nGreen Park Market,\nSouth West Delhi-110016.\nPAN-AAACA9931D\n(Appellant)\n\nDCIT,\nCentral Circle-30,\nVs. New Delhi.\n(Respondent)\n\nAssessee by\nShri Mayank Patawarai, Adv.\nDepartment by\nShri Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR\nDate of Hearing\n15/07/2025\nDate of Pronouncem

Section 144Section 153ASection 271ASection 69A

hands of the assessee. In first appeal Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition, therefore, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking the following grounds: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is bad both in eyes

Income Tax Officer Ward 4(1), New Delhi vs. Baba Vishwakarma Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 2813/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Baba Vishwakarma Ward-4(1), Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. Vs. G-3, Karampura, New Delhi-110015 Pan-Aabcb4897N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/10/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 10.08.2023 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-2/10110/2017-18 Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) Dated 22.03.2016 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Company & The Case Of The Assessee Was Taken Up For Scrutiny. During The Course Of Hearing, The Assessee Has Not Submitted The Requisite Details, Therefore, The Assessment Was Completed U/S 144 Of The Act By Making Addition Of Rs.2,35,50,000/- U/S 68 Of The Act. Against Such Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A), Who Vide Impugned Order Ito Vs. Baba Vishwakarma Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. Dated 10.08.2023 Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee & Deleted The Additions Made By Ao. Against The Said Order, The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal By Taking Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 144Section 68

allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the additions made by AO. Against the said order, the revenue has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ed. CIT(A) erred in deleting