← 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

Ganpatbhai Chaturbhai Patel, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 1342/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Hem Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. Asst. Year : 2013-14 - 3– 6. At the outset, it is observed that the assessee was categorically required to submit supporting evidence explaining the source

Blueray Trading Pvt. Limited, Thane vs. The Dy. CIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee before us stands allowed

ITA 496/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalblueray Trading Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. 306, Snehadisha, Parawadi, Income-Tax, Highway Road, Thane-400601 Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad [Pan : Aafcm 8859 D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Abhijit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- Delay Condoned. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.08.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short), Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ In Short), Relating To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68Section 69C

entries, confirmed the addition of Rs.33,50,000/-. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the addition of Rs.33.50 lakhs under Section 69C is based solely on estimated commission, without any evidence ... companies from whom the share capital was claimed to have been received. Further, the PCIT noted that since the Department has filed appeal before the Tribunal in the matter, which is pending adjudication therefore, there is no restriction on the PCIT in initiating 263 proceedings, in the instant facts. Accordingly

Dande Madhusudan Jaikrishana HUF, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Nashik

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

ITA 631/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri C.D. UpasaniFor Respondent: Ms. Sailee Dhole, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

NFAC, Delhi, relating to assessment year 2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 400 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay which is due to illness ... sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 11. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 12. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to illness of the assessee who was suffering from cancer

Bhagdeshwar Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. ITO Ward 10(1), Pune

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

ITA 1613/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay SuryavanshiFor Respondent: Ms. Sailee Dhole, JCIT
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

NFAC, Delhi, relating to assessment year 2018-19. 2. There is a delay of 368 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. It has been explained that the staff ... action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under: 12. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee relying on various decisions submitted that the issue stands decided in favour of the assessee

Venugopal Ravichandran, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 19(6)M Chennai, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2121/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2121/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Venugopal Ravichandran Income Tax Officer, Old No.5, New No.7, Bhavani Street, Non Corp Ward-19(6), Bharathi Nagar, Tharamani, Ttti, Chennai. Taramani S.O, Taramani, Chennai-600 113. [Pan: Adypr7701G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman,Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Saujanya Ranjan, Irs सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman,FCAFor Respondent: Mr.Saujanya Ranjan, IRS
Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 37

time to time. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 31 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assessee has pleaded that the assessee is an educated person and was totally dependent upon his Chartered Accountant

Shankara Gurukulam, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward-2, Bengaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 663/BANG/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Bharath Kumar U, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Murali Mohan M, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 12ASection 80G(5)

ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024-25/1071347073(1) respectively. 2. The appeals filed by the assessee are delayed of 26 days. Assessee has furnished reason for delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit it has been stated that after receipt of rejection Order by the CIT(E), assessee ITA Nos.662, 663/Bang/2025 Page ... contacting different professionals for proper advice. Later on assessee contacted the aforementioned Counsel and was advised to file appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, there was delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Considering the explanation of the assessee, it is noticed that assessee had reasonable cause for not filing

Shankara Gurukulam, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer Exemptions Ward-2, Bengaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 662/BANG/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Bharath Kumar U, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Murali Mohan M, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 12ASection 80G(5)

ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024-25/1071347073(1) respectively. 2. The appeals filed by the assessee are delayed of 26 days. Assessee has furnished reason for delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit it has been stated that after receipt of rejection Order by the CIT(E), assessee ITA Nos.662, 663/Bang/2025 Page ... contacting different professionals for proper advice. Later on assessee contacted the aforementioned Counsel and was advised to file appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, there was delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Considering the explanation of the assessee, it is noticed that assessee had reasonable cause for not filing

Umesh Bahu, Davangere vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Davangere

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

ITA 573/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri. Umesh Babu, Vs. Ito, S O Thippeswamy Onkareshwara Badavane, Ward – 1, Jagalur Town, Jagalur, Davangere. Davangere – 577 528. Pan : Aanpu 1988 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S,Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S,JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 69A

appeal before the learned CIT(A) and learned CIT(A) dismissed appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and before the learned CIT(A) assessee submitted cash flow statements

Mohan Roshan, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(5), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by theassessee is dismissed

ITA 1390/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri. Roshan Mohan, Vs. Ito, M-30C, Forest Quarters, 18Th Main, Ward – 7(2)(5), Malleshwaram, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 055. Pan : Ajqpr 4955 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Deepak Chopra, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Deepak Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 194JSection 44A

taken as Rs. 16,44,968/- as declared in original return of income.” 5. Aggrieved from the above assessment order , assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. During the course of hearing the learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and submitted that assessee is engaged in rendering

Vimal Pukhraj Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 42(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4305/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrivimal Pukhraj Jain Income Tax Officer Ward 806, Dheeraj Enclave, Borivali East, Vs. 42(1)(5) Opp. Bhor Industries, Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, 400066 Mumbai 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaipj6511H (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररती की ओर से / Assessee By: Shri. Pankaj Jain/ Ms. Karuna Kurle Shirdhankar /Revenue By: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Dated 14.02.2023 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) –Nfac Has Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs. 50,000/- Levied By The Assessing Officer By Invoking Provisions Of Section 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Non-Compliance Of The Notices.” 3. At The Outset, It Is Notice That There Is A Delay In Filling Appeal Of 807 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The P A G E | 2

For Appellant: Shri. Pankaj Jain/ Ms. KarunaFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik SR. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)

checked the status of the proceedings on the income tax portal and thereafter it came to the notice of the assessee that the appeal before the Tribunal had not been filed. Since the filing of appeal got delayed due to genuine and bonafide reasons, therefore, the assessee has requested

Swiss Re Asia Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1995/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker & Pranay Gandhi, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(i)

144C(5). Since for the Assessment Year 2018-19 Assessing Officer is not permitted to challenge the findings returned by the DRP in appeal before the Tribunal, the revenue cannot be permitted to set up a case against the directions passed by the DRP. Therefore, taking a view consistent with

Taaruni Connections (India) Private Limited, Delhi vs. Pr CIT Delhi-7, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3233/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2021-22 Vs. Pcit, Taaruni Connections (India) Pvt. Ltd., Delhi-7 Shop No. 42, F.F. Dda Market, Csc-9, Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi Pan: Aagct7687R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit(Dr)

Section 263

Revenue. He has accordingly revised the foregoing assessment finding in very terms which leaves the assessee aggrieved who has filed the instant appeal before the tribunal. 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective vehement submissions against

Amit Sharma, Gurugram vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Gurugram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3231/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Yogesh Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

afresh after making requisite enquiries and proper verification with regard to taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest

Acharya Balkrishna, Haridwar vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 112/DDN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 250Section 68Section 69Section 69C

filed before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal wherein the assessee has taken following grounds of appeal: “1. That the learned Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred both

Wassimuddin Kazi, Bhilai vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai

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

ITA 537/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.537/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Wasimuddin Kazi Ews 410, Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai-490 023 (C.G.) Pan: Bmdpk4223K

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

there is no evidence regarding any deliberate or malafide conduct of the assessee as regards the delay involved in filing of the present appeal before the Tribunal and whatever delay has been caused, was absolutely 5 Wassimuddin Kazi Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai circumstantial beyond any direct control

Vijay Kumar Agrawal, Raipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur

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

ITA 529/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.529/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Vijay Kumar Agrawal Prop. Of V.K Steels, Kamla Super Market, Telghani Naka, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aaypa1957A

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 250

there is no evidence regarding any deliberate or malafide conduct of the assessee as regards the delay involved in filing of the present appeal before the Tribunal and whatever delay has been caused, was absolutely circumstantial beyond any direct control of bonafide assessee. At the same time in these issues

Amruthavarshini Dairy Farms Private Limited, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(4) Hyderabad, Hyderabad

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

ITA 374/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69A

appeal of the assessee and passed ex-parte order. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The impugned order of the Ld. Authorities below insofar as it is against the appellant

Shaik Saida, Nuzvid vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

ITA 338/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271A

outset, it is noticed from the record that there is a delay of 116 days in filing the present three appeals before the Tribunal and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons, similar to the three appeals, which are extracted herein below ... appeal of the assessee and passed ex-parte order. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: 6 ITA No. 336, 337 and 338/Viz/2025 Shaik Saida vs. ITO 1. That on the facts

Shaik Saida, Nuzvid vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 337/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the Tribunal and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons, similar to the three appeals, which are extracted herein below:

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 69A

outset, it is noticed from the record that there is a delay of 116 days in filing the present three appeals before the Tribunal and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons, similar to the three appeals, which are extracted herein below: Shaik Saida vs. ITO Shaik Saida ... appeal of the assessee and passed ex-parte order. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: Shaik Saida vs. ITO 6. Further, the assessee has also raised additional Grounds of Appeal which read

Shaik Saida, Nuzvid vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 336/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: the Tribunal and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons, similar to the three appeals, which are extracted herein below:

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 69A

outset, it is noticed from the record that there is a delay of 116 days in filing the present three appeals before the Tribunal and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons, similar to the three appeals, which are extracted herein below: Shaik Saida vs. ITO Shaik Saida ... appeal of the assessee and passed ex-parte order. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: Shaik Saida vs. ITO 6. Further, the assessee has also raised additional Grounds of Appeal which read