← 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

Msn Laboratories Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Addl CIT, Central Range-2, Hyderabad

ITA 2171/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 153ASection 269Section 269OSection 269SSection 271D

penalty levied under section 271DA of the Act. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The learned Counsel for the assessee Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A, referring to Ground No.3 of the assessee's appeal submitted that the penalty

Msn Laboratories Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Addl CIT, Central Range-2, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 2165/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2164, 2165, 2171 & 2172/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22) M/S. Msn Laboratories (P) Ltd Vs. Additional Cit Hyderabad Central Range-2 Pan:Aadcm6283F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad, All Dated 08/10/2025 For The A.Ys 2018-19 To 2021-22 Respectively. Since, Identical Issues Have Been Raised By The Assessee In All These Four Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 153ASection 269Section 271DSection 274

penalty levied under section 271DA of the Act. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The learned Counsel for the assessee Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A, referring to Ground No.3 of the assessee’s appeal submitted that the penalty

Msn Laboratories Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Addl CIT, Central Range-2, Hyderabad

ITA 2164/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 153ASection 269Section 269OSection 269SSection 271D

penalty levied under section 271DA of the Act. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The learned Counsel for the assessee Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A, referring to Ground No.3 of the assessee's appeal submitted that the penalty

Paranjyothi Thota, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2079/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2050 & 2079/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Paran Jyothi Thota Vs. Asstt. Cit Hyderabad Circle 5(1) Pan:Ajqpt7772F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate C. Anurag रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/02/2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 09/09/2025 & 25/09/2025, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Page 1 Of 33

For Appellant: Advocate C. AnuragFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

accepted. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed appeal. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee without ... Paranjyothi Thota delay of 4 years 3 months and 23 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, for which the assessee could not explain any reason, much less than a sufficient reason for not filing the appeal. Although the assessee claims that she was not aware of the assessment

Paranjyothi Thota, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2050/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2050 & 2079/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Paran Jyothi Thota Vs. Asstt. Cit Hyderabad Circle 5(1) Pan:Ajqpt7772F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate C. Anurag रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/02/2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 09/09/2025 & 25/09/2025, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Page 1 Of 33

For Appellant: Advocate C. AnuragFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

accepted. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed appeal. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee without ... Paranjyothi Thota delay of 4 years 3 months and 23 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, for which the assessee could not explain any reason, much less than a sufficient reason for not filing the appeal. Although the assessee claims that she was not aware of the assessment

Fayaz Mohammed, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

ITA 1672/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha G.

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, САFor Respondent: Smt.V Koteshwaramma, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 69

ITA Nos 1671 and 1672 of 2025 Fayaz Mohammed आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Fayaz Mohammed, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1671/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 69

assessee and sustained the addition made by the A.O. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. referring to the date of search, the order passed

Samiuddin Aslam, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1225/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1222 To 1225/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20) Shri Samiudedin Aslam Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4) Hyderabad Pan: Ckvpa7727F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The A. O Under Section 153C R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, All Dated 17/01/2025, For The Assessment. Years 2016-17 To 2019- 20 Respectively. The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds For All The Four Assessment Years. Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)
Section 115BSection 132Section 144C(5)Section 153CSection 69Section 69A

towards investments made for purchase of property. 6. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the A.O, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned Counsel for the assessee Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A submitted that the final assessment order passed by the A.O under section

Samiuddin Aslam, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1224/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1222 To 1225/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20) Shri Samiudedin Aslam Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4) Hyderabad Pan: Ckvpa7727F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The A. O Under Section 153C R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, All Dated 17/01/2025, For The Assessment. Years 2016-17 To 2019- 20 Respectively. The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds For All The Four Assessment Years. Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)
Section 115BSection 132Section 144C(5)Section 153CSection 69Section 69A

towards investments made for purchase of property. 6. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the A.O, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned Counsel for the assessee Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A submitted that the final assessment order passed by the A.O under section

Samiuddin Aslam, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

ITA 1223/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1222 To 1225/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20) Shri Samiudedin Aslam Hyderabad Pan: Ckvpa7727F (Appellant) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4) Hyderabad (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. आदेश/Order These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The A. O Under Section 153C R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, All Dated 17/01/2025, For The Assessment. Years 2016-17 To 2019- 20 Respectively. The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds For All The Four Assessment Years. Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Respondent: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CA
Section 132Section 144C(13)Section 148Section 153BSection 153CSection 69

towards investments made for purchase of property. 6. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the A.O, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned Counsel for the assessee Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A submitted that the final assessment order passed by the A.O under section

Samiuddin Aslam, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1222/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1222 To 1225/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20) Shri Samiudedin Aslam Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4) Hyderabad Pan: Ckvpa7727F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The A. O Under Section 153C R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, All Dated 17/01/2025, For The Assessment. Years 2016-17 To 2019- 20 Respectively. The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds For All The Four Assessment Years. Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)
Section 115BSection 132Section 144C(5)Section 153CSection 69Section 69A

towards investments made for purchase of property. 6. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the A.O, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned Counsel for the assessee Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A submitted that the final assessment order passed by the A.O under section

Navatharangini Mahila Podupu Paraspara Sahakara Parimitha Samithi, Warangal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Warangal

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 991/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.991/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Navatharangini Mahila Podupu Paraspara The Income Tax Sahakara Parimitha Officer, Ward-2, Vs. Samithi, Warangal. Warangal. Pin – 506 132. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Aaecn6799N Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: -None- राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms V Koteswaramma, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25.02.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: MS V Koteswaramma, Sr. AR
Section 140Section 253

present appeal, however, Memo Appeal in Form 36 uploaded is unsigned and unverified. As per Rule 47 of I.T. Rules, 1962, an appeal before the Tribunal shall be made in Form 36 along with grounds of appeal and the form of verification appended thereto shall be signed by the person ... there is a gap of 09 months in filing the appeal which is beyond the limitation period of 02 months for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, in the facts and circumstances as discussed above, the present appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 9. In the result, appeal

Padam Kumar Agarwal, Darjeeling Stores M G Marg vs. AO, Gangtok

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

ITA 3248/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2017-18 dated 28.10.2025. 2. The Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming additions ... result appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The assessment order was made

Sri Sri Ramakrishna Ashrama Ahmadpur, Ahmadpur vs. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Kolkata, CIT(E)

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2858/KOL/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)(ii)Section 80G(5)(iii)

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: “1. That the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata (hereinafter referred ... rejected. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. It was contended that the registration u/s 12A was granted on 25.09.2020 and, therefore, the approval u/s 80G could

Paramasivam Prabhakaran, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tiruchengode

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3668/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3668/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Nikitha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, CIT
Section 147Section 250Section 69A

respond to the various notices issued by the CIT(A). Therefore the CIT(A) dismiss the appeal ex-parte . The assessee is in appeal before the tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. There is a delay of the 95 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal ... material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC) we condone

Sudarsanam Bhaskaran, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-10(3), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3657/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3657/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

stating that the assessee has not substantiated the claim towards cost of acquisition/improvement with proper evidences. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. There is a delay of the 03 days in filing the appeal before the tribunal and the assessee ... material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC) we condone

Nagaiah Maruthai, Dindigul vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dindigul

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3648/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3648/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. Velpandiar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250

accept the submissions of the assessee and confirmed the addition made by the AO. The assessee is in appeal before the tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a wholesale

Balamurugan Anniyammal, Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kanchipuram

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3645/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3645/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 148Section 148ASection 250

assessee did not respond to the notices issued, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte . The assessee is in appeal before the tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee

Dharman Sivakumar, Dharmapuri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dharmapuri

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 3628/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3628/Chny/2025 & Sa No.6/Chny/2026 (Arises In Ita No.3628/Chny/2025) िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dharman Sivakumar, The Income Tax Officer, 5/135, Keelmaraiamman Kovil Street, Vs. Ward-1, Dharmapuri Collectorate S.O., Dharmapuri. Dharmapuri – 636 705. Pan: Bykps 9499C

For Respondent: Mr.Raja Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

notices issued by the CIT(A) the appeal was decided ex-parte confirming the addition made by the AO. The assessee is in appeal before the tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. There is a delay of the 01 day in filing the appeal before the tribunal ... material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC) we condone

George Maijo Industries Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3621/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3621/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Joshita Jothi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 68

assessee did not appear and therefore the appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) ex-parte. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. There is a delay of the 92 days in filing the appeal before the tribunal and the assessee ... material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC) we condone