← 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

Parsan Brothers, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 36, Kolkata

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

ITA 795/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 69C

which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 16.12.2017. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That your appellant submits that the Appeal Order passed u/s 250 of the Income ... appeal on account of non-prosecution of the appeal. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Rival submissions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that

Bhabna, Kolkata vs. CIT (Exmption), Kolkata

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

ITA 319/KOL/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Sept 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 80G

instant appeal within statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication 3. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. Appeal against Order no: ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024- 25/1072541125(1) for re-consideration and Condonation of Delay for Submission ... maintainable without going into the merits. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT (Exemption), the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. It was submitted during the course of the hearing

Forum Viniyog Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-8(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1338/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. I.T.A. No.: 1338/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Forum Viniyog Pvt. Ltd. 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 ... dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that proper submission could

Sri Sastha Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemption, Chennai

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

ITA 839/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 839/Chny/2025 M/S. Sri Sastha Charitable The Commissioner Of Trust, Vs. Income Tax (Exemption), No.10, 2Nd Floor, Chennai. Duraiswamy Pillai Street, West Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045. Pan: Aazts 0449L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Sonali Kothari, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Sonali Kothari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 10Section 119Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

this order and hence, the same is rejected. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(E), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR has highlighted that the assessee submitted an application in accordance with clause (iii) of the first proviso to sub-section

Arumugam Pavalakkodi, Villupuram vs. ITO, Ward-2, Villupuram

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

ITA 1822/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1822/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2011-12 Arumugam Pavalakkodi, Income Tax Officer, No.76 Salem Main Road, Chinnasalem, Ward-2, Kallakkurichi, Villupuram, Villupuram. Tamil Nadu-606 201. [Pan: Brupp8511R] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Veeramany K, Irs सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba / Nfac / S / 250 / 2022-23 / 1051051140(1) Dated 21.03.2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[Nfac], Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2011-12. The Reference To The Word “Act” In This Order Hereinafter Shall Mean The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time.

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Veeramany K, IRS

No.1822 /Chny/2025 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 756 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assessee has pleaded that the assessee is a senior citizen having multiple ailments and that she is not conversant with

Balamourougan, Puducherry vs. ITO, Ward-3, Puducherry

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

ITA 1814/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1814/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2011-12 Balamourougan, Income Tax Officer, No.14, 2Nd Cross, Navasakthi Nagar, Ward-3, Puducherry-605 009. Puducherry. [Pan: Agrpb3165E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.Hitesh, Advocate For Mr.D.Anand, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Veeramany K, Irs सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.Hitesh, Advocate for Mr.D.AnandFor Respondent: Shri Veeramany K, IRS
Section 144Section 147

No.1814 /Chny/2025 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 420 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assessee has pleaded that the assessee is not conversant with the electronic working of the department and hence omitted

Vama Charitable Trust, Tirunelveli vs. CIT(Exemptions), Chennai

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

ITA 1798/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1798/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2023-24 Vama Charitable Trust, Commissioner Of Income Tax Sivanthiappar Mela Street, Sivasailam (Exemptions) Road, Alwarkurichi, Ambasamudram, Chennai. Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu-627 412. [Pan: Aactv6752C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri H.Yeshwanthkumar, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri H.Yeshwanthkumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 12ASection 80G

No.1798 /Chny/2025 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 235 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assessee has pleaded that the assessee had applied for renewal of registration u/s 80G on 31.03.2024 which was rejected

Ramesh Rani, Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Krishnagiri

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

ITA 1702/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1702/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18 Ramesh Rani, Income Tax Officer, No.38/69, Keerthana Traders, Ward-1, A.C.Street, Nagaramsampatti, Krishnagiri. Pochampalli Taluk, Krishnagiri, Tamil Nadu-635 204. [Pan: Aonpr2397J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

time to time. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 44 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assessee has pleaded that the assessee was not aware of the passing of the appellate order since neither

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1 1, Chennai vs. Idfc Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 1649/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1649/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit, Idfc Limited, Corporate Circle 1 (1), Vs. Krm Towers, Chennai. 7Th Floor, No.1, Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. Pan: Aaaci 2663N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ketan K. Ved, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri Ketan K. Ved, CA
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 260A

case to the AO with specific directions. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Department has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.DR relied on the grounds raised. 7. The Ld.AR on the other had submitted that the issues raised by the Department are squarely

Nasima Farook Sundka Nasima Yusuf Siwani, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 211/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Harsha J., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Thamba Mahendra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

came to know only when the demand was passed. On that basis, assessee approached her present Advocate, who advised assessee to file an appeal before the Tribunal. Accordingly assessee filed the appeal which has caused delay of 188 days as stated in the defect memo issued by the Tribunal dated

Sapana Rajendra Kumar Marathe, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4363/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

restored the same back to the AO for making fresh assessment. 3. There is a delay of 32 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee filed a petition seeking condonation of delay along with the an affidavit. Having heard both the parties and perused the material ... 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 the delay

Gupta Builders and Developers, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4361/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika Agarwal, Advocate
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 68

issuance of the notice by an Officer of Central Charge.” 3. There is a delay of 183 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit. It is submitted that the partner who is managing ... 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

M/S. Gateway Distriparks Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3300/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 250

favour of the appellant.” 3. 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). 4. The ld. AR submitted that if the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ... decided the issue pertaining to disallowance under section 14A in favour of the assessee and that the revenue filed further appeal before the Tribunal against the said order. The ld. AR further submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench while deciding the revenue's appeal

Arjun Dev, Gurugram Haryana vs. ITO, Udyog Vihar Gurugram

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

ITA 4027/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

Section 147

existent person/dead person, which is not valid and hence quashed. However, it was noticed that appeal before the Tribunal is filed by the assessee’s legal heir Kanika Sardana and as the First Appellate Authority the ld. CIT(A) and direct him to frame the appellate order on legal heir

Vijay Kumar Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO - Ward 60(3), Delhi

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

ITA 3870/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi03 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 115BSection 144Section 44ASection 69A

satisfactorily explained before the assessing officer/appellate authorities. The addition of Rs 3095509 is upheld u/s 69A.” 6.1. Aggrieved assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal 7. I have heard ld. Sr. DR and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case and I noted that the cash deposit during

Dev Anand Sahu, Raipur vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 472/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.472/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dev Anand Sahu 15/128, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)- 492 001 Pan: Bkops8817G

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250

communicated or informed regarding passing of the appellate order of the assessee which resulted in delay of 304 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. The same has been reiterated as per oral submission by the Ld. Counsel. For the sake of completeness, Para 3 of the said affidavit

Shri Girish Chandra Sethi, Mayurbhanj vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Baripada

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 315/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Somanath Sahoo, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

properly during the course of appellate proceedings. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds :- 1) That the exparte order passed by the learned CIT(Appeals), NFAC vide Appeal No. CIT(A), Cuttack/10846/2019-20 dated

Naba Utkal Trust, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Bhubaneswar

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 268/CTK/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Am आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.268/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2021-2022) Naba Utkal Trust, Vs Ito, Exemption, Bhubaneswar Plot No.841, Keshab Complex, Cuttack Road, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No. : Aabtn 0126 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order, Dated 28.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Addl./Jcit(A), Panaji, For The Assessment Year 2021-2022. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 60 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein That The Delay Of 60 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Due To Lack Of Knowledge About The Order Passed By The Ld.Pcit. Accordingly, The Assessee Prayed That The Delay Of 60 Days May Kindly Be Condoned & Appeal Of The Assessee May Kindly Be Admitted For Hearing. Ld. Sr. Dr Did Not Raise Any Objection To This Contention Of The Assessee For Condonation Of Delay. Accordingly, We Are Of The View That The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 11(2)Section 119(2)Section 12ASection 143(1)

power to condone the delay for late filing of Form 10B. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal raising various grounds, however, the primary contention of the assessee is that the assessee could not file the audit report in due course

Hygienic Products for Common Citizens, Madhepura vs. ITO Ward 3(4), Saharsa

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

ITA 141/PAT/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Maitin, ARFor Respondent: Smt Rinku Singh, DR
Section 142Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250

appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” Aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT (A) dismissing the appeal, the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. Page ITA No. 141/PAT/2025 Hygienic Products for Common Citizens; A.Y. 2019-20 06. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material

Chanda Singh, Katihar vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna

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

ITA 127/PAT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 153CSection 250Section 69

dated 19.02.2025, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 153C of the Act, dated 29.03.2022. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “A) The learned AO & CIT (A) has grossly erred in the addition made by invoking section 69 since ... appeal is dismissed” 5. Aggrieved with the order of dismissal of appeal by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. I.T.A. No.: 127/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Chanda Singh. 6. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. It was submitted