← 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

Narender Singh Makkar, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward-3(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 2484/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandranarender Singh Makkar Vs. Ito 131/18, Laxmi Garden Laxmi Ward-3(1) Garden, Gurugram Gurugram 122001 Pan: Ajupm8087A Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms.Monalisa Maity, Adv Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.

Section 144Section 147

Assessee was not living with the family members, therefore, due to the stress the Assessee could not concentrate in filing the appeal before the Tribunal as it took substantial time to procure relevant documents and filing the 2 Narender Singh Makkar Vs. ITO Appeal before the Tribunal. Thus, sought ... Assessee was not living with the family members, therefore, due to the stress the Assessee could not concentrate in filing the appeal before the Tribunal as it took substantial time to procure relevant documents and filing the Appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again

Alka Yadav, Gurgao vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1) Gurgaon, Gurgaon

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

ITA 1769/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1769/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Alka Yadav, Income Tax Officer, Ground Floor, C-06, Block C, Vs. Ward 1(1), South City 2, Sector-49, Gurgaon, Haryana. Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No.Abppy9248J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 153Section 250

above explanation furnished by the Assessee, we find that there is sufficient cause and reason for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Thus, the delay of 142 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted. 3. Coming

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Suncity Infrastructures Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4831/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwaldy. Cit, Suncity Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. Lgf-10, Vasant Square Mall, Vs. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaics7928N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Shri Pawan Garg, Ca Department By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 01/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 20.08.2024 In Appeal No. Nfac/2014-15/10115325 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S.144B Dated 29.03.2021 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Real State. The Return Of Income Of The Year Under Appeal Was Filed On 30.09.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,93,54,930/- & The Same Was Assessee U/S 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 24.11.2017 Wherein The Income Declared Was Accepted By The Ao. Thereafter, Based On The Information That The Assessee Has Dcit Vs. Suncity Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Allotted Preference Shares To One Shri Tarun Agarwal, At 16546/- Per Which Were Not Commensurate With The Financials Of The Company & After Obtaining The Approval Form The Competent Authority Notice Was Issued U/S 148 Dated 31.03.2021 Which Was Served Upon The Assessee On 01.04.2021. Thereafter, Reassessment Order Was Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Wherein Addition Of Rs.11,00,00,000/- Was Made On Account Of Share Premium Treated As Unexplained U/S 68 Of The Act R.W.S 115Bbe Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

assessee was dismissed, however, additions were deleted after considering the merits of the case. 4. Against the said order, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) was right in allowing

Balbir Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 43(1), Civic Center

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 1097/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1097/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Balbir Singh, Acit, B-360, New Kanchan Road Apartment, Vs. Circle-43(1), Dwarka, New Delhi. Minto Road, New Delhi. Pan No.Edvps8264Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 119Section 143(2)

condonation of delay, we are of the view that the assessee has properly explained the short delay of 19 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, the same is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. “That the Ld. NFAC

Aditya Sharma, New Delhi vs. ACIT, CC-19, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8405/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.3622 और 8405 /िद"ी/2019 (िन.व. 2014-15)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Wadwa, Shivam Garg & Harsh Raghav, &For Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 153D

First Appellate stage, the assessee got part relief. Against the additions confirmed by the CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Revenue is also in appeal before the Tribunal assailing findings of the CIT(A) where additions have been deleted 3. The assessee has raised an additional

Timex Group India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addi. CIT Spl.Range-9, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7526/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Timex Group India Ltd. Additional Commissioner Of Income 106-107, Ambadeep Building, Tax, Special Range-9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Vs New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Aaact0773C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2013-14] Additional Commissioner Of M/S Timex Group India Ltd. Income Tax, Special Range-9, 106-107, Ambadeep Building, New Delhi-110002 Vs Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Aaact0773C Revenue Assessee Assessee By Shri Tushar Jarwal, Adv. Shri Aayush Nagpal, Adv. & Shri Vikrant Maheshwari, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rohit Garg, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.09.2025

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

Hence, the contention of the appellant is not accepted.” 6. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 7. During the hearing before us, the Ld. AR filed a written submission which is reproduced as under: “Grounds 11-14, Pg. 5 are to be decided

DCIT, Central Circle- 7, New Delhi vs. Aditya Sharma, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5199/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.3622 और 8405 /िद"ी/2019 (िन.व. 2014-15)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Wadwa, Shivam Garg & Harsh Raghav, &For Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 153D

First Appellate stage, the assessee got part relief. Against the additions confirmed by the CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Revenue is also in appeal before the Tribunal assailing findings of the CIT(A) where additions have been deleted 3. The assessee has raised an additional

Aditya Sharma, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-19, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3622/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.3622 और 8405 /िद"ी/2019 (िन.व. 2014-15)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Wadwa, Shivam Garg & Harsh Raghav, &For Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 153D

First Appellate stage, the assessee got part relief. Against the additions confirmed by the CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Revenue is also in appeal before the Tribunal assailing findings of the CIT(A) where additions have been deleted 3. The assessee has raised an additional

Back to Village, Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj vs. ITO, Ward 1, Baripada

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

ITA 64/CTK/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.64/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2022-2023) Back To Village Vs Ito, Ward-1, Baripada Flat- G1 Loknath(R) Complex, Near Mandir Shahi Kucheibudhi, Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj, 757043 Pan No. : Aadab 2576 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assesee and consequently, the assessee’s appeal before the Tribunal. It was submission that at this point it was brought to the attention of the Ld. AR that the assesee having filed

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Sambalpur vs. Ashoka Ispat Udyog, Rourkela

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 485/CTK/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Agarwalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR

submissions. As it is noticed that the tax effect for the A.Y. 2018-19 is below the prescribed limit for filing revenue’s appeal before the Tribunal, therefore, on account of tax effect the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed. 5. Consequently, ITA No.485/CTK/2024 stands dismissed on account

Dharmendrasinh Harisinh Raj, Bharuch vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Bharuch

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

ITA 304/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.304/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Dharmendrasinh Harisinh Raj Income Tax Officer Ward-1(5), बनाम/ 153, Chakla Faliyu, Village- Bharuch, Income Tax Office, Hari Vs. Sayakha, Taluka-Vagar, Kunj, Station Road, Bharuch-356 Bharuch-392 140 069 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bifpr 8389 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Appellant By Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69A

admit the appeal. He dismissed the appeal for statistical purposes. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), appellant has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR has filed a paper book and submitted that the assessee had filed various replies to the CIT(A), which

Kamuben Ramanlal Patel, Daman vs. Income Tax Officer, Daman

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

ITA 913/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Raghunath Kamble& Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.913/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Hybrid Hearing) Smt. Kamuben Ramanlal Patel Income Tax Officer, Daman, बनाम/ House No.1, Varkund, Income Tax Department, Jeevanji Vs. Mithanagar, Nani Daman, Hotel Building, Kathiria Road, Daman & Diu-396 210 Nani Daman, Daman & Diu- -396210 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acppk1885N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे/Appellant By Shri Hemant Suthar, Ca राज"कीओरसे /Respondent By Shriajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

facts, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the CIT(A). 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), appellant filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had filed additional ground of appeal wherein he has challenged the validity of the notice issued

Rohit Steel Industries, Mandi Gobindgarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Mandi Gobindgarh

In the result, appeal is partly allowed,

ITA 629/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 133(6)

Date of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 HYBRID HEARING O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 18.02.2025 passed for assessment year

Juna Madhupura Vepari Mahajan Ltd Dawakhana Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1 (Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 718/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyaljuna Madhupura Vepari Mahajan Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ltd Dawakhana Trust, Ward-1 (Exemption), 1, Dawakhana Trust Building, Old Ahmedabad Madhupura, Ahmedabad-380001 [Pan : Aaatj 1029 J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D.K. Parikh, Ar Respondent By: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.09.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri D.K. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

year under appeal i.e., A.Y. 2021-22. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the Trust has been registered under section 12A since 1975, and its activities, particularly the running

Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmebabad vs. Techno Industries, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 659/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalthe Deputy Commissioner Of Techno Industries, Vs. Income Tax, Plot No.613, Phase Iv Gidc, Circle 3(1)(1), Vatva, Ahmedabad-382245. Ahmedabad. [Pan :Aacft1503 D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Abhijit, Sr. Dr Respondent By: Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Date Of Hearing 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

materials on record, deleted the addition. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the Assessing Officer has rightly made the addition

Team Sahay Trust Vadodara, Vadodara vs. CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 401/AHD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

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

For Appellant: Shri Sarju Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

requisite details/explanation and to establish the genuineness of its activities. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(E), the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the outset, we find that notices were issued from time to time to furnish details/documents as called

Budhiman Enterprise Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1516/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

courts/tribunal, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the transaction with the transaction in dispute is unsecured loan transaction which has been repaid

Budhiman Enterprise Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1513/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

courts/tribunal, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the transaction with the transaction in dispute is unsecured loan transaction which has been repaid

Saurashtra Dasha Modh Vanik Naranpura Association, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1391/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Pamil H Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri RP Rastogi, CIT. DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

requisite details/explanation and to establish the genuineness of its activities. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(E), the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the outset, we find that notices were issued from time to time to furnish details/documents as called

Soham Pulin Purohit, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1372/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamblesoham Pulin Purohit, Income Tax Officer, Vs. A/92, Rivera Heights, Ward-3(3)(5), Opp. Sharnam-10, Ahmedabad. C.G Road, Prahladnagar, Ahmedabad-380015. Gujarat. [Pan :Bxspp5288 B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S.N Divatia, With Shri Samir Vora, Ars Respondent By: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.N Divatia, with Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 68

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. On perusal of the record, we find that the assessee was granted four opportunities of hearing to furnish details, clarifications, and Asst. Year