← 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

M/S. Shring Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., Dehradun vs. ACIT, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3308/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal{ M/S Shring Construction Asst. Cit, Company Pvt. Ltd., Circle-2, D-245, Nehru Colony, Vs. Muzaffar Nagar. Haridwar Road, Dehradun. Pan:Aabcr4560L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ankit Gupta, Adv. Department By Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 68

dismissed the appeal of assessee in terms of impugned order dated 24.02.2017. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking the following grounds of appeal: “1. That assessment order passed u/s 143(3) by the Assessing officer is illegal

Priyesh Singhania, Raipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 462/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.462/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Priyesh Singhania 730/1, Radha Kunj, Opposite Vip Guest House, Pahuna, Shankar Nagar Main Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aoups7838A ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 194D

said rectification application u/s.154 r.w.s. 250 would be disposed of within a reasonable time and waited for its outcome before preferring an appeal before the Tribunal and in such process, the delay of 57 days caused by the assessee. 3. The Sr. DR did not raise any objection regarding ... 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 control of bonafide assessee. In so far the delay is concerned, taking

Rajesh Kumar, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 3 (2), Gaya

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

ITA 171/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 147Section 234ASection 250Section 271FSection 69A

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. For that the Ld. CIT(A)NFAC Delhi has erred in sustaining the order

The Payakaraopeta Womens Mutually Aided Co Op Thrift Credit Society Limited, Payakaraopeta vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 371/VIZ/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: the Tribunal. In respect of belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. Authorized Representative filed a petition along with an affidavit stating that due to inadvertent oversight in tracking the date, the appeal before the Tribunal was filed belatedly on 02nd June, 2025 instead of 31st May, 2025 resulting in a delay of 02 days. It was further submitted that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but solely due to human error and therefore pleaded that the delay of 02 days may be condon

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80P

outset, it is noticed from the record that there is a delay of 02 (two) days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In respect of belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. Authorized Representative filed a petition along with an affidavit stating that due to inadvertent oversight in tracking ... date, the appeal before the Tribunal was filed belatedly on 02nd June, 2025 instead of 31st May, 2025 resulting in a delay of 02 days. It was further submitted that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but solely due to human error and therefore pleaded that the delay

Kanishka F&B, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Vijayawada

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

ITA 501/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the Tribunal. In respect of the belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit and the relevant paragraphs from the affidavit are extracted herein below:

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

outset, it is noticed from the record that there is a delay of 193 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In respect of the belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit and the relevant paragraphs from ... compliance from the assessee to the hearing notices issued. 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. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed

M/S Bansal Oil Mill Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 444/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 131(1)(d)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

confirmed the addition of Rs. 21,95,385/- made by the AO. Now the assessee, being aggrieved, has come in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds mentioned hereinabove. 4. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the lower authorities were not justified in making the addition

Mo. Shariph Kureshi, Sikar vs. ITO Ward-4 Sikar, Sikar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 366/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

During the course of hearing, the Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 7 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application explaining the cause of such delay which is supported by an Affidavit. 4. We have gone through

Shree Sarvaniketan Trust, Anand vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1476/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalshree Sarvaniketan Trust, The Commissioner Of Vs. Gandhi Pol, Karamsad, Income-Tax (Exemption), Anand Ahmedabad [Pan : Aadts 3072 K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Viranch Modi, Ar Respondent By: Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 16.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Viranch Modi, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 80GSection 80G(5)

subsequently withdrawn as it was time-barred. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the original application was filed within the time limit and, wrong clause selection

Vishwabandhu Dahyabhai Patel, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 1421/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalvishwabandhu Dahyabhai Patel, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Plot No. 633/105, Vastu Nirman Ward 4, Society, Opp. Rang Manch, Gandhinagar Sector-22, Gandhinagar-382021 Present Jurisdiction [Pan : Aivpp 8807 B] Dcit, Circle, Gandhinagar (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Pritesh Shah, Ca Respondent By: Shri Abhijit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.09.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

during appellate proceedings. 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 notices were sent by the Ld. CIT(A) to an incorrect email address that did not belong

Kanala Venkata Prathap Reddy, Anantapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anantapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 1213/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1213/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Kanala Venkata Pratap Vs. Income Tax Officer Reddy Ward-1 Anantapur Anantapur Pan : Bydpp6731R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, DR

liable to be dismissed, being barred by limitation, as the assessee has failed to explain the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He has further submitted that even there was no representation before the CIT(A) and the assessee failed to comply with

Shri Nityanand Pandey, Hooghly vs. I.T.O., Ward - 23(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 2067/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250

craved for by your petitioner.” 1.2. The assessee has also filed an affidavit dated 11.03.2025 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Considering the application as well as the affidavit for condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the assessee ... 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. For that on the facts of the case, the order passed

The Tiruvannamalai Coop Urban Bank Ltd., Tiruvannamalai vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Vellore

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

ITA 2016/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2016/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Tiruvannamalai Co-Op The Income Tax Officer, Urban Bank Ltd., Vs. Circle 1, 87/18, Sannadhi Street, Vellore Tiruvannamalai – 606 601. Pan: Aaeft 9897Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Murali, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam,Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, C.A ""For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam,JCIT
Section 250Section 270A

file the appeal within the time. On perusal of the reason stated, we find there is sufficient cause for delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 3. At the very outset

Syed Khaja Mohideen, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-17(7), Chennai

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

ITA 1991/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1991/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Syed Khaja Mohideen, The Income Tax Officer, Khaja & Sait, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 17(7), Block 3D, Door No.9, Chennai. Murrays Gate Road, Venus Colony, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aseps 9976R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Khaja Mohideen, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam,Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Khaja Mohideen, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam,JCIT
Section 250

file the appeal within the time. On perusal of the reason stated, we find there is sufficient cause for delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 3. At the very outset

Vasudhevan Muralidharan, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Erode

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

ITA 1980/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1980/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Vasudhevan The Income Tax Officer, Muralidharan, Vs. Ward 1(1), 25, Bangalore Ayyengar Bakery, Erode 1St Street, Varnapuram, Bhavani – 638 302. Pan: Bnrpm 8315H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam,Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri T.S.Lakshmi VenkataramanFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam,JCIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54FSection 68

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 for admission of additional evidence. The additional evidence that

K Paramasivan & Sons, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corp. Circlr-19(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1727/CHNY/2025[2012 13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri George George Kआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1727/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri K. Paramasivan & Sons, The Deputy Commissioner 89, Anna Salai, Vs. Of Income Tax, Guindy, Non-Corporate Ward 19(1), Chennai – 600 032. Chennai. Pan: Aakfk 7053P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sudarshan, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)

were out of station on scheduled leave/tour. Consequently, the preparation and finalization of appeal papers got delayed resulting in delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. On perusal of the reasons stated, we find there is sufficient cause for delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Hence ... result, the appeal is partly allowed.” 6. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that the FAA has erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.16,84,761/- solely on the ground that customer account balances

Thane Zilla Vidyasevak Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4900/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrithane Zilla Vidyasevak Vs. Commissioner Of Income Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd. Tax (Appeals), National Through Mr. Sudhir Evram Faceless Appeal Centre/ Ghagas Chairman 1St Floor, Ward 3(4) Sundera Plaza, Near Sanai Ashar It Park, Neheru Mangal Hall, Kalyan (West), Nagar, Wagle Industrial Kalyan-421301. Estate, Thane West, Thane- 400604. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadft4365L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar Parwardhan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has now filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, Ld. AR submitted that the issue regarding deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) in respect of interest income on deposits with

Income Tax Officer- 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ellora Hitech Infra Venture Private Limited, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 4657/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavita Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriincome Tax Officer-15(1)(1) Vs. Ellora Hitech Infra Venture Room No. 456, 4Th Floor, Private Limited Aayakar Bhawan, Plot No. 8, Ellora Fiesta, M.K. Road, Sector-11, Opp. Jui Nagar Mumbai-400020. Railway, Sanpada, Navi Mumbai-400706. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacce2217N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

result, the appeal of the appellant is allowed.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the revenue has filed an appeal before the Tribunal on the ground that the assessee did not prove and establish the creditworthiness of the source from which the impugned amount in cash

Jignesh Mahesh Gohel, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 41(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2708/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrijignesh Mahesh Gohel Dcit, Circle 41(2)(1), Shop No.4, Surya Prakash Vs. Mumbai Building, Ganesh Gavde Road, Room No. 831, Kautilya Mulund (W), Mumbai 400080 Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aarpg3795P (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररती की ओर से / Assessee By: Shri. Aditya Ramchandran /Revenue By: Shri Vivek Perampurna Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Pr. C.I.T., Mumbai -41 (Hereinafter Referred To As "Pcit"] Dated 26.03.2025 Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Aditya RamchandranFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 47

Money’ and thereafter pass a fresh assessment order. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. PCIT, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. P a g e | 3 ITA No 2708/Mum/2025 AY 2015-16 Jignesh Mahesh Gohel 4. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that the order

Jagdish Raghunathji Lahoti, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circel 23(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1999/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhri & Jagdish Raghunathji Lahoti Assistant Commissioner, 27/31, 4Th Floor, Bootwala Vs. Circle 23(1), Mumbai Building, Old Hanuman Lane, 113, 1St Floor, Matru Mandir, Kalbadevi 400002 Tardeo Road, Mumbai 400007 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Abxpl4596N (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररती की ओर से / Assessee By: Shri. Ajinkya Vaishampayan /Revenue By: Shri Vivek Perampurna Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Dated 24.01.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2014-15 & 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Ajinkya VaishampayanFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 250Section 69A

fresh assessment after considering the assesse’s submissions. 4.1. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal on the ground that Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the validity of the notice issued

Jagdish Raghunathji Lahoti, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 23(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1998/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhri & Jagdish Raghunathji Lahoti Assistant Commissioner, 27/31, 4Th Floor, Bootwala Vs. Circle 23(1), Mumbai Building, Old Hanuman Lane, 113, 1St Floor, Matru Mandir, Kalbadevi 400002 Tardeo Road, Mumbai 400007 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Abxpl4596N (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररती की ओर से / Assessee By: Shri. Ajinkya Vaishampayan /Revenue By: Shri Vivek Perampurna Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Dated 24.01.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2014-15 & 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Ajinkya VaishampayanFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 250Section 69A

fresh assessment after considering the assesse’s submissions. 4.1. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal on the ground that Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the validity of the notice issued