← 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

Mazher Ali Khan, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1286/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad06 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1286/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22) Shri Mazher Ali Khan, Dy. Cit, Circle 6(1) Hyderabad. Vs. Hyderabad Pan: Aezpk4724N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Vinod, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M. :

For Appellant: Shri P. Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144B

appeal, dismissed the same for non-prosecution. 4. Aggrieved with the orders of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee had sought adjournment for four weeks vide submission dated 15.07.2025 in response

Sky High II Leasing Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1550/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

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

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

finance lease and (iii) the aircraft that is leased is the PE of the assessee in India. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 5. At the outset the ld. AR submitted

Sky High Lxxx Leasing Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1549/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

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

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

finance lease and (iii) the aircraft that is leased is the PE of the assessee in India. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 5. At the outset the ld. AR submitted

Sky High Lxxviii Leasing Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1548/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

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

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

finance lease and (iii) the aircraft that is leased is the PE of the assessee in India. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 5. At the outset the ld. AR submitted

Sky High Lxxix Leasing Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1546/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

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

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

finance lease and (iii) the aircraft that is leased is the PE of the assessee in India. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 5. At the outset the ld. AR submitted

Kabir Mulchandani, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD-II) Cr 7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5342/MUM/2024[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकरअपीलसं./Itano.5342/Mum/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01) Kabirmulchandani V/S. Acit (Osd-Ii) Cr-7, बनाम C/O R.C Kapoor & Co, Mumbai Chartered Accountants Acit (Osd-Ii) Cr-7, Mumbai D-36, South Extension Part-Ii, New Delhi 110049 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabpm1224B Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/"ितवादी ..

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the same inliminivide order dated 11.12.2003. The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the order of Ld. CIT(A). Vide order dated 11.05.2007 of the coordinate bench, the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes

DCIT 42 1 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Satyendra Kumar Triloknath Goyal, Mumbai

ITA 4421/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 250Section 43CSection 66Section 68Section 69C

assessee considering the fact that the difference between the sale value and the stamp duty value is only 7.7%. The revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). Addition towards unexplained loans and interest thereon. 4. The ld. DR submitted that mere submission

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. World Series Hockey Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3894/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt.Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri SwapnilChoudhary- Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Hence, in view of the discussion made in above paras, I delete the penalty levied by AO.” Aggrieved, the revenue has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal against deletion of the penalty by the ld. CIT(A). 4. We have heard the ld. DR and perused the material on record

Meenakshi Infrastructures Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1231/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1231/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S. Meenakshi Vs. Acit Infrastructures (P) Ltd Circle 1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaecm0206D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S Sandhya राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shanawaz-Ul-Rahman, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Meenakshi Infrastructures (P) Ltd (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Hyderabad-11” (“Ld.Cit(A)”, Dated 21/04/2025 For The A.Y 2021-22. 2. Feeling Aggrieved With The Order Of The Ld.Cit (A), The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Advocate S SandhyaFor Respondent: : Shri Shanawaz-Ul-Rahman

urged at the time of hearing”. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, this is the second round of appeal before the Tribunal. In the first round, this Tribunal vide order in ITA No.353/Hyd /2024, dated 11.07.2024, had remanded the matter to the file ... late deposit of the cost. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CITA), the assessee has preferred the present second round of appeal before this Tribunal. Page 2 of 4 ITA No 1231 of 2025 Meenakshi Infrastrucures P Ltd The Learned Authorised Representative ("Ld. AR") submitted that the assessee

Tigerhill Tradelink Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Appellant is Dismissed

ITA 956/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 271BSection 68

were heard together and are being decided by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No.: 956/KOL/2025: “1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... Supreme Court judgement. 6. Hence this appeal is dismissed.” Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Rival contentions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR also filed written submissions

Tigerhill Tradelink Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Appellant is Dismissed

ITA 955/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 271BSection 68

were heard together and are being decided by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No.: 956/KOL/2025: “1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... Supreme Court judgement. 6. Hence this appeal is dismissed.” Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Rival contentions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR also filed written submissions

Sandeep Kumar Sethia, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 44(2), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is

ITA 584/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

instant appeal within 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: “1. That the Order passed u/s 250 is bad in law as well as on facts ... 584/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sandeep Kumar Sethia. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival submissions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. DR relied upon the order

Society for Community Organisation and Peoples Education (Scope), Tiruchirappalli vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 1127/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1127/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: - Society For Community Organization Commissioner Of Income Tax & Peoples Education (Scope), (Exemptions), No.17, 16Th Cross, Ahmed Colony, Chennai. Ramalinga Nagar, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu- 620 003. [Pan: Aaets3488C] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N.Arjun Raj, Advocate, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri N.Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

time to time. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 22 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. The assessee has pleaded that the small delay occurred as the assessee trust is located on the outskirts of Tiruchirapalli and the delay

Garje Rudrappa Jayanna, Mandya vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Mandya

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1079/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 271F

submissions and issu raised by the assessee before him, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 12. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and the learned Counsel strongly contested that notice issued ITA Nos.1078, 1079/Bang/2025

Garje Rudrappa Jayanna, Mandya vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Mandya

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1078/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 271F

submissions and issu raised by the assessee before him, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 12. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and the learned Counsel strongly contested that notice issued ITA Nos.1078, 1079/Bang/2025

Jitendra Singh, Bijnor vs. Income Tax Officer, Bijnor

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3316/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhasstt. Year : 2015-16 Jitendra Singh, Vs. Acit/Jcit(Appeals) C/O S R Agarwalla & Co., Ca Faridabad / Nfac Shop No. 7, Kisan Inter College Market, Meerut-Karnal Road, Shamli, Uttar Pradesh-246776 (Pan: Ezaps4872M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Manish Singh, Ca Respondent By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.10.2025 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Emanating From The Order Of The Ld. Addl/Jcit (A), Faridabad Dated 27.03.2025 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2015-16 On The Solitary Issue Of Addition Of Rs. 13,00,000/- On Account Of Cash Deposit. 2. Heard Both The Sides & Perused The Records. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Information Reported In Aims Module Of Itba That The Assessee Had Deposited More Than Rs. 10 Lacs In Different Saving Bank Accounts Maintained By Him During The F.Y. 2014-15 Relevant To Ay 2015-16. A Query Letter As Well As A Notice U/S. 133(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Issued & Served Upon The Assessee Asking Him To Furnish The Source Of Income & Credit

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Singh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 69A

sustained on account of unexplained money by the AO. Aggrieved, the action of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Heard the rival contentions and perused the records. 5. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR has submitted that assessee is an individual, engaged

Punam Sinha, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (1), Patna

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

ITA 298/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Assessment Year : 2015-16 Punam Sinha, Near Shiv Mandir, Vs. Ito, Ward 6(1), Patna Khajpura, Patna-800014,Bihar Pan/Gir No. Ainps 1974 Q (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar Singhal, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/09/2025 O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 06.06.2024 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Patna -2/11391/2019-20 Passed For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 301 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Stating That At The Time Of Ld Cit(A) Passed The Order, The Assessee Was Suffering From Spine Diseases & Also Eye Disease I.E. Glucoma. Due To This Fact, She Was Not Unable To Look After Her Day-To-Day Business. It Is Also Stated That Assessee Being A Lady Was Not Conversant With P A G E 1 | 5 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar Singhal, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 53A

carried the matter in appeal but without any success, as the appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance. Hence, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I have heard ld Sr DR and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that

Jai Prakash Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (1), Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for

ITA 297/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Assessment Year : 2015-16 Jai Prakash Singh, Near Shiv Vs. Ito, Ward 6(1), Patna Mandir, Khajpura, Patna- 800014, Bihar Pan/Gir No. Ainps 1974 Q (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar Singhal, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/09/2025 O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 21.08.2024 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Patna -1/11368/2019-20 Passed For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 239 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Stating That The Assessee Being A Senior Citizen & Was Not Conversant With The Computer System. The Notices Were Issued To The Assessee By The Ld Cit(A) In The Income Tax Portal & Since The Assessee Was Not Aware Of The Notices, No Submissions As Well As Paper Book Was Filed.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar Singhal, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 53A

carried the matter in appeal but without any success, as the appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance. Hence, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I have heard ld Sr DR and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that

Protech Packaging Pvt. Ltd, Patna vs. ITO, Ward, 2(2), Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for

ITA 214/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Assessment Year : 2015-16 Protech Packaging Pvt Ltd., 3A, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(2), Patna Ground Floor, Pushpanjali Venkatesh, Budh Marg, Patna- 80000 Pan/Gir No. Aagcp 1473 K (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar Singhal, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/09/2025 O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 23.06.2023 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Patna -1/10147/2017-18 Passed For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 607 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Stating That The Order Of Ld Cit(A) Was Passed On 23.6.2023 & The Appeal Was Required To Be Filed Within 60 Days, However, Due To Serious Illness Of The Accountant Who Was Entrusted To Take Steps In P A G E 1 | 5 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar Singhal, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 56

account of his illness regarding the dismissal of the appeal by the ld CIT(A). Hence, there was delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal causing 607 days. It is the submission that the assessee would not get any benefit not filing the appeal rather there will ... carried the matter in appeal but without any success, as the appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance. Hence, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I have heard ld Sr DR and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that

Gandem Nageswara Rao, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anakapalle

ITA 304/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

notified U/s. 151A of the Act.” 3. At the outset, we noticed that there is a delay of 46 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In respect of belated filing of the appeal, the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay wherein it is mentioned that