← 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

Andhra Pradesh Power Development Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 677/HYD/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, Srinivas RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 263

after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 7. Aggrieved by the Order of the learned PCIT, the assessee is, now in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. CA, Srinivas Rao, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the learned PCIT was erred in invoking jurisdiction under section

Rain Cements, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 540/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Madan Mohan Meena, Sr. AR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 234CSection 246A

therefore, right in holding that the assessee had failed to make 12 ITA.No.540/Hyd./2025 out sufficient cause for not preferring an appeal to the Tribunal within the prescribed time. For the reasons stated above, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, that is, against the assessee ... condoned and the appeal is dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Sri Deepak Chopra, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee

Agras Residency Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1159/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

No.1159/Hyd/2025 2 2. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 45 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay accompanied by an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. The Learned Authorised Representative ... assessee came to know about the passing of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), it immediately made arrangements for filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Thus, the delay of 45 days was caused due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. He submitted that the delay was neither

Arcot Afsar Begum, Tadipatri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anantapur

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

ITA 1134/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: The Tribunal Within The Prescribed Period. It Was Contended That The Delay Is Neither Willful Nor Deliberate But Has Occurred On Account Of Genuine & Bona Fide Reasons. Accordingly, He Prayed For Condonation Of The Delay In The Interest Of Substantial Justice. 3. Per Contra, The Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. Dr") Did Not Raise Any Serious Objection To The Prayer Of The Assessee. 4. We Have Carefully Considered The Submissions Of Both Sides & Perused The Condonation Petition Along With The Affidavit Placed On Record. On Perusal Of The Same, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Has Shown A Reasonable & Bona Fide Cause For The Delay In Filing The Appeal. It Is Well Settled That When Substantial Justice & Technical Considerations Are Pitted Against Each Other, The Cause Of Substantial Justice Deserves To Be Preferred. In View Of The Above Facts & Circumstances & There Being No Serious Objection From The Revenue, We Condone The Delay Of 95 Days In Filing Of The Appeal. Accordingly, The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication On Merits. 5. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 115BSection 147Section 44ASection 69A

dismissed the appeal ex-parte. 8. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has now come in appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice. He invited our attention

Srini Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1121/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, MV PrasadFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35

penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 10. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee company is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 11. CA, MV Prasad, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) was erred in dismissing the ground taken

Nagarjuna Engineering Constructions, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 6(1), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee-company is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1081/HYD/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, M Chandramouleswara RaoFor Respondent: Sri Madan Mohan Meena,Sr. AR
Section 143(1)

filing petition for condonation of delay. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee-company is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. CA, M. Chandramouleswara Rao, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the income tax return filed by the assessee-company was processed

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Bio Green Papers Limited, Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 769/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: For Revenue : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 131

dated 15.09.2019 relating to the assessment year 2014-2015. 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 3 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Revenue has filed petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed period duly explaining ... ITA.No.908/Hyd./2025 the reasons. We, therefore, condone the delay of 3 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of kraft paper, e-filed

Nurul Islam Mullick, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward 61(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 799/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Nurul Islam Mullick, Bhupatipur, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 61 Munshirhat, Jagatballavpur, (1), Kolkata Howrah-711410 Pan/Gir No. Adkpm 8272 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Miraz D. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/09/2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Miraz D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

consultant office to know regarding the appeal result, such copy of appellate order was discovered. Therefore, the assessee took steps to file the appeal before the Tribunal and it was in this backdrop that there was delay of 412 days. It is also stated that the delay in filing ... allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition to the extent of Rs.6,00,000/-. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6 After considering the rival contentions, I find that the assessee had planned for Haj Piligrim for which, the assessee had withdrawn huge

Rakesh Kumar Bhutoria, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 368/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 154Section 250

dated 20.12.2024, which has been passed against the rectification order u/s 154 of the Act, dated 20.07.2022. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. It was submitted that the challan was under the wrong head

Ratan Shaw, Naihati vs. ITO, Ward 51(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 309/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.309/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ratan Shaw………………….…………………....…………………....Appellant 15, L. N. Kabiraj Road, Gorifa, Naihati, Wb-743166. [Pan: Bvups8926H] Vs. Ito, Ward-51(3), Kolkata..……………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Adhikari, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 12, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Chennai (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 22.11.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 12 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Explaining The Reasons Or Such Delay. After Considering The Submissions & Materials On Record, We Are Satisfied That There Was Reasonable Cause For The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Said Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 12 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition explaining the reasons or such delay. After considering the submissions and materials on record, we are satisfied that there was reasonable cause ... assessee was dismissed by simply sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR contended that due to clerical error, while filing the return a figure of Rs.2012513/- was wrongly

Sujoy Krishna Jana, Kolkata vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle 27(1), Haldia

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1236/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No.: 1235/KOL/2025: “1. That on the facts and on the circumstances of the case ... delay without discussing the merits of the case. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee

Sujoy Krishna Jana, Kolkata vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle 27(1), Haldia

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1235/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No.: 1235/KOL/2025: “1. That on the facts and on the circumstances of the case ... delay without discussing the merits of the case. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee

Jkc Realty Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 9(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1122/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: The Tribunal.

For Appellant: JKC Realty Private Limited, 10AFor Respondent: Income Tax Officer, Ward 9 (1)
Section 148Section 68

affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer on the ground of limitation without considering the case on merits. Hence, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, ld counsel for the assessee submitted that the reopening of assessment is invalid and nullity

Veeraswamy Jotheeswaran, Tiruvallur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tiruvallur

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

ITA 1756/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sudarshan, JCIT
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 56(2)(vii)

well-reasoned assessment order passed by the AO.” 4. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed two sets :- 6 -: of paper-book. In one set of paper-book, assessee has enclosed the case laws relied

Nafees Ahmad, Gonda vs. ITO Ward-52(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4046/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhasstt. Year : 2017-18 Nafees Ahmad, Vs. Ito-52(1), New Delhi/ Nfac, 115/21, Rakabganj, Kotwali Nagar, Delhi Gonda, Uttar Pradesh-271001 (Pan: Aiopa0771A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Prashant Kumar Verma, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Emanating From The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi Dated 18.11.2024 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. The Solitary Issue Argued By The Ld. Ar Is Relating To Challenging The Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act Dated 27.3.2021 Issued By The Ito, Ward- 52(1), Delhi Is Without Jurisdiction & Is Void Ab Initio & Consequently The Reassessment Is Also Void Ab Initio. 2. Heard Both The Sides & Perused The Records. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Original Return Of Income For The Ay 2017-18 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 2,60,450/-. Thereafter, The Assessee Filed Revised Return Of Income Declaring Taxable Income Of Rs. 3,12,480/-. As Per The Financial Transactions Reported In The Its, Assessee Has Deposited Cash Amounting To Rs. 18,29,000/- With Indian Overseas Bank At Gonda

For Appellant: Sh. Prashant Kumar Verma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Hence, Grounds No.2, 3 and 6 of the appellant are dismissed.” 4. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 2 | P a g e 5. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR has submitted that the notice

Mahesh Chand Garg, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal stands allowed

ITA 3376/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Mahesh Chand Garg, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), B-209, Lohia Nagar, Cgo Complex, Ghaziabad-201001 Ghaziabad-201001 Uttar Pradesh (Pan: Aarpg8728N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Neelesh Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

dated 30.1.2025 has dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. 4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the Ld. CIT(A), Assessee is in Appeal before the Tribunal for challenging the legal issue, as aforesaid. 5. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has only argued the afore

The Sai Man Education Society, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, the instant assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3271/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON'BLE (Vice President)

For Appellant: Sh. Nitin Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 115Section 115BSection 68

course of assessment proceedings but later on submitted a receipt dated 05.12.2016 which was not accepted by the AO. Aggrieved, assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 3. During the hearing, Ld. AR has submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 26,25,000/- under

Venkateswarlu Chandu, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 43(1), New Delhi

In the result, the instant assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3119/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2017-18 Venkateswarlu Chandu, Vs. Dcit, Cc-43(1), B-905, Best Paradise, Plot No. 4, New Delhi Bhartiya Cghs, Sector-19, Dwarka, Delhi – 110 075 (Pan: Acdpc4984A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Rajat Jain, Ca & Sh. Akshat Jain, Ca Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 Order This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.04.2025 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Solitary Issue Raised In This Appeal Is Relating To Sustaining Of Addition Of Rs. 9,99,000/- Made By The Ao U/S. 69C Of The Act. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee E-Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 31.10.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Nil. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass & Statutory Notices Were Issued To The Assessee. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Submitted That He Earned An Agriculture Income Of Rs. 23,10,000/- & This Receipt Was Deposited In Cash To Pay For The Bills Of Credit Care In His Bank Located In Delhi. On Perusal Of The Submissions Filed By The Assessee It Was Observed By The Ao That The Assessee Earned Agriculture Income In Cash Nellipudi Village, Andhra Pradesh. In Response To Requisite Notices, Ao Noted

For Appellant: Sh. Rajat Jain, CA & Sh. Akshat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 69C

Nellipudi Village, Andhra Pradesh to Delhi. He noted that few payments were made at Hyderabad, Vijaywada, Guntur and Securderabad. Aggrieved, assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 3. During the hearing, Ld. AR has submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of credit card payments in cash

Brijesh Kumar Goswami, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-36(2), Delhi

In the result, the instant assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2415/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2012-13 Brijesh Kumar Goswami, Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-305, Majlis Park, Adarsh Ward 36(2), New Dehi Nagar, New Dehi – 110 033 (Pan: Adapg2435L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 Order This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.02.2025 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Being Individual, Not Having Filed His Income Tax Return For The Ay 2012-13, Simply For The Reason That The Total Income For The Year Was Less Than The Threshold Limit Of Assessment. In The Meanwhile, In Compliance To Notice U/S. 148 Dated 30.3.2019 The Assessee Furnished His Return Of Income, Declaring Taxable Income Of Rs. 13,521/- & Claimed Refund Of Rs. 2,230/-. Assessment In This Case Was Completed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act At A Total Income Of Rs. 8,60,180/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs. 13,520/- & Made The Addition Of Rs. 1,09,640/- On Account Of Share Trading Transactions With Mcx & Rs. 71,316/- On Account Of Share Trading With Bse & A Sum Of Rs. 87,584/- As Adhoc Disallowance Of Expenditure Claimed. Besides This, He Has Also Denied The Exemption On Account Of Agricultural Income, Thereby Making

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(1)Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148

thereby making additions of Rs. 5,78,120/-. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite issue of notice of hearing, hence, I am proceeding exparte qua the assessee, after

Vinod Jindal, Faridabad, Haryana vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad, Haryana

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1985/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal wherein the following grounds of appeal are taken: “1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case ... then A.O. and the approving authority, (which has been filed much after the granting of the approval and at the stage of second Appeal before the Tribunal), upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the present case in hand is factually distinguishable. In view of the judgement