“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

Angamuthu Veeraraghavan, Trichy vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Trichy

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3618/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3618/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69ASection 69C

appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. 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

Jagannathan Krishnaveni, Thanjavur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kumbakonam

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3617/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3617/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2019-20

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

Section 250Section 69B

appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. The assessee is in appeal before the tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. There is delay of the 31 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

Subashchandrabose Vijayakanth, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3183/CHNY/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.S

For Appellant: Mr. P Jeyaraman, CAFor Respondent: Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, JCIT

Section 148Section 148ASection 250

credit card transactions towards settling the dues. The CIT(A) thus confirmed the additions made by the assessing officer. The assessee is in appeal before the tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). Subhashchandrabose Vijayakanth :- 3 -: 3. We heard the parties and perused the material on record

Income Tax Officer, Parel vs. N K Family Trust, Lower Parel

Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 8969/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: us, at the outset, invited our attention to the Cross Objection raised by the Assessee whereby the Assessee has challenged the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act which reads as under: "1. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the reopening of

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai

Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148

Assessee on merits. 4. Being aggrieved by the relief granted by the Learned CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal while the Assessee has filed Cross-Objections challenging the validity of the re-assessment proceedings. The Assessee has challenged the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer

Horizon Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 21(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 8469/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

decided the issue in favour of the assessee; however, according to the Ld. AO, the Department had preferred an appeal before the Tribunal against the said appellate order. Solely on this reasoning, and without pointing out any independent distinguishing feature in the facts of the year under consideration, 3 I.T.A

Income Tax Officer-16(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tejprakash Sohan Lal Dangi, Mumbai

ITA 7624/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhujhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68Section 69C

deleted the addition and hence Revenue has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. Ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions by following the Order of Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Mumbai in the case ITAT of assessee's own Shri Chirag Tejprakash Dangi (ITA No.3256/Mum/2022 dated 20/02/2024) involving exactly identical case issue ... assessed the same u/s 69C of the Act. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition and hence the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Learned AR submitted that the assessee is a regular investor in shares. He submitted that the assessee has purchased shares in physical

Raman Vasu Thachisaril, Kollam vs. ITO, Ward- Jagdalpur, Jagdalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 91/RPR/2026[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.91/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Raman Vasu Thachisaril Ramanalayam Clappana, Kollam, Amrithapuri S.O-690 546 Kerala, India Pan: Adopt0795N

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 282A(1)

grounds of appeal on record. 2. At the very outset, it is noted that there is delay of 396 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. That explaining the reasons for such delay and praying for condonation of the same, the assessee had filed condonation petition a/w. affidavit, dated

Ramesh Panjwani, Dhamtari vs. ITO, Dhamtari

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

ITA 89/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.89/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ramesh Panjwani C/O. Shubham Vastralaya, Shastri Chowk, Dhamtari (C.G.)- 493 773 Pan: Aeppp7560K

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

grounds of appeal on record. 2. At the very outset, it is noted that there is delay of 64 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. That explaining the reasons for such delay and praying for condonation of the same, the assessee had filed condonation petition a/w. affidavit, dated

Biswambar Pati, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 45/CTK/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiabiswambar Pati, D.C.I.T., Plot No. 3454, At Palasuni, P.O.- Circle-1(1), Vs. Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar-751010 Bhubaneswar. (Odisha) Pan No. Bnvpp 8160 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false. Ld. Sr. DR did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay Biswambar Pati ... DCIT of 11 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 4. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) have dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. It was the prayer

Geeta Baid, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer - Jeypore, Jeypore

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

ITA 756/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjib Banerjee, Sr. DR

assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with medical documents stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false. Ld. Sr. DR did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay ... days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. It was the prayer that the matter may be 2 restored

Anupama Infotech Provate Limited, Mayurbhanj vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Baripada

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

ITA 542/CTK/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Feb 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 250

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2024-25 dated 12.08.2025. 2. The Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1 For that in view and circumstances of the case the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC ... Assessment Year: 2024-25 Anupama Infotech Private Limited. 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. It was submitted before us that the CPC had rejected

ITO, W-1(3), Vaishali, Hajipur vs. Shiv Sharan Singh, Hajipur

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

ITA 524/PAT/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

Shiv Sharan Singh. statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law the Commissioner of Income ... appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes.” {emphasis supplied} 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. It is contended that the Ld. CIT(A) has exceeded

Oosmania Trust, Muzaffarpur vs. CIT (E), Patna

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

ITA 519/PAT/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

registration u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 11.09.2025. 2. The Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Ld. CIT (E) erred in rejecting (t)he application for final registration and should ... also cancelled. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT (Exemption), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. 6. During the course of the hearing, it was stated that the assessee is an old trust

Kamla Devi Jaydayal Jain Private Limited, Muzaffarpur vs. Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax, Muzaffarpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 19/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132(1)Section 250

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. For that the order of assessment passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals), Patna ... claim and partly allowed the appeal. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the case was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR. The assessee had filed

Ommi Sandeep, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

ITA 507/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 247/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assessment Year:2017-18) The Chinnampeta Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited Chinnampeta Village Chinnampeta Post, Chatrai Mandal Krishna – 521214, Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aacat7997E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व / Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व / Department Represented By सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement V. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3(5) C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex M.G. Road, Vijayawada Andhra Pradesh (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar 16.12.2025 24.02.2026 आदेश /Order Per Omkareshwar Chidara: 1. The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 31.10.2025, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'Act') By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”], For The A.Y. 2017-18.

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)

Society Limited 2. At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 24 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR"] drew our attention to the affidavit filed ... time limit with a delay of 24 days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 24 days Page No. 2 in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. The only issue to be adjudicated in the above cited

Health Biotech Limited, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 987/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: the disposal of the same.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

income and that the penalty proceedings were validly initiated. 6. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 7. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. The principal contention raised

Dinesh Verma, Manali, Himachal Pradesh vs. ITO, ITO Ward Kullu

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 897/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinamar Gupta, C.A (Virtually)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 263Section 270A

270A of the Act after following due procedure laid down and to take consequential action. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During the course of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer had examined the matter and therefore the revision under

Ajay Tanta, Shimla vs. Income Tax Officer, Shimla

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 835/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashray Sarna, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, CIT, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 69A

also affirming the action of the Assessing Officer on merits. 5. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assesse preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings as being illegal, without jurisdiction and barred by limitation, in addition to challenging the additions made

Income Tax Officer, Patiala vs. Tushar Bansal, Patiala

Appeals are dismissed being

ITA 1588/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 1552, 1565 & 1588/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Ito, Tushar Bansal, Ward – 3, Vs 127, Phulkian Enclave, Patiala. Patiala. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cqrpb1745E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 254Section 271ASection 272A

that tax effect in each appeal is less than the monetary limit provided in the CBDT Circular for authorizing the revenue to file appeal before the Tribunal and hence, all these three appeals are not maintainable in their present form. 4. The ld. DR, on the other hand sought ... limit of Rs.60 lacs provided in CBDT Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024. The CBDT has prohibited its authorities for challenging any order of ld.CIT (Appeals) before the Tribunal unless tax effect by virtue of relief given by the CIT (Appeals) exceeds Rs.60 lacs. The Circular further provides exceptional clauses where these

Income Tax Officer, Patiala vs. Tushar Bansal, Patiala

Appeals are dismissed being

ITA 1565/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 254Section 271ASection 272A