“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

Pavan Kumar Bhagat, Saharsa vs. ITO, Ward-3(4), Saharsa, Sahara

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

ITA 281/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 37Section 69A

which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, dated 28.11.2019. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that ... were confirmed. 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 time of hearing the Ld. AR filed an adjournment application but subsequently withdrew the same

Mohit Kapoor Ludhiana, Punjab vs. Jao the Income Tax Officr Ward 2(1), Ludhiana, Punjab

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 735/CHANDI/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

dismissed, and the addition was sustained for want of evidence. 7. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that due to inadvertent reasons and wrong communication of email addresses, the assessee could not effectively

M/S Valco Industries Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT-CC-1, Chandigarh

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 125/CHANDI/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 125/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05 Valco Industries Ltd., Vs The Dcit, Sco 37, Sector 26, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacv5195J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Monga, Ca Assessee By : Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Monga, CA

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

Date of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 02.09.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 27.03.2018 passed for assessment year

Salvantsingh Swarupsingh Pallu, Vadodara vs. ITO, Ward 1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 949/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalsalvantsingh Swarupsingh Pallu, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. A1, 204, Mangal Marvel Ward 1(1)(1), Apartment, Tarsali, Vadodara. Vadodara-390009 [Pan : Alqpp 5330 F] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sanket Bakshi, Ar Respondent By: Shri Rajenkumar M. Vasavda, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02.09.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Bakshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M. Vasavda, Sr DR

Section 147Section 250Section 69

Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that assessee is a farmer and engaged in agricultural activities. The Ld. AR submitted that the deposits were

Rajeshkumar Natubhai Patel, Piplag Nadiad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Nadiad

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

ITA 1395/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalrajeshkumar Natubhai Patel, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Matru Chhaya, Piplag Ward-5, Chokdi Petlad Road, Piplag, Nadiad. Nadiad-387255. [Pan :Ahppp4940 G]

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Panchal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M. Vasavda, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

substantiate his claims with proper evidence. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. AR, before us, submitted that the assessee normally reside in the USA and visit India year to year since 2017. During

Mithlesh Ashok Thukral, Pune vs. ITO Ward 13(4), Pune

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

ITA 840/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 249Section 250

present appeal is dismissed.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. Addl CIT(A) / JCIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset drew the attention of the Bench to the contents of the condonation application filed

Farheez Eruch Aga, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Pune

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

ITA 1870/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 133(6)

sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 7. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition of Rs.35

Prabha Trading Corporation, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-40(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2119/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

account of undisclosed commission income. 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. I.T.A. No.: 2119/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Prabha Trading Corporation

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. Seven Hills Project Private Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 1454/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 43B

dated 05.07.2023, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 28.12.2017. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ... ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 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 and the record has been examined. In the course of the appeal before

Mahalingam Sundara Moorthy, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1682/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1682/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mahalingam Sundara Moorthy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 602, Srithi Block, Chitra Avenue, Corporate Ward 4(1), Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai. [Pan:Afypm5382G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274Section 68

appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed for want of prosecution. On being aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee preferred present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Having heard the ld. DR, on perusal of the impugned order, we note that the ld. CIT(A) issued hearing notices under section

ACIT-27(1), Mumbai vs. Gammon Neelkanth Realty Corporation, Mumbai

ITA 1897/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Adv. &

Section 250

basis. Accordingly, upholding the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), we dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue.” 4. The revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 5. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee has started the project "Neelkanth Kingdom" way back

ACIT 27(1), Mumbai vs. Gammon Neelkanth Realty Corporation, Mumbai

ITA 1896/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Adv. &

Section 250

Sanjeev Kumar, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (1), Patna

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 264/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna01 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.264/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sanjeev Kumar...……………………………. …………………....Appellant Om Enterprises, Main Bazar, Bihta, Bihar- 801503. [Pan: Aswpk7096A] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(1), Patna……..…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 1St, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.01.2025 Passed By The Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 56 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 250

Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 56 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 ... compliance 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 assessee did not turn up before this Bench. Although, Registry has issued notice to the assessee. As no one turned

Dineshwar Prasad, Sarvadya Kamla Apartment, Boring Road vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Patna, Not Known

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

ITA 250/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna01 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.250/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dineshwar Prasad.………………………. …………………....Appellant Sarvadya Kamla Apartment, An Path, North S K Puri, Boring Road, Patna - 800013. [Pan: Acwpp8473C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-4, Patna…..…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.S.P Singh, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 1St, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.02.2023 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 749 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 250Section 69

Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 749 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 ... having no alternative, dismissed the appeal ex parte by upholding the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. The assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal raising various ground. However, the main contention of the ld. AR is that the assessee could not represent the case properly before

Girish Chandra, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 4(3), Patna

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

ITA 615/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna01 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.615/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Girish Chandra……………………………. …………………....Appellant S/O Harsukh Rai Vyas, Nai Sarak, 11/A Devaki Complex, Chowk Patna City, Patna-800008. [Pan: Afrpc1879H] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Patna……..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Pradeep Kr., Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 1St, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.12.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 253 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 250Section 69A

Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 253 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 ... having no alternative, dismissed the appeal ex parte by upholding the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. The assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal raising various ground. However, the main contention of the ld. AR is that the assessee could not represent the case properly before

Abinash Jha, Patna vs. ITO Ward 4(5), Patna

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 220/PAT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna01 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.220/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Abinash Jha…....……………………………. …………………....Appellant Flat No.304, Gauri Shankar Complex, Lohiya Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna Bihar- 800020. [Pan: Afppj3114G] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(5), Patna……..…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 20, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 1St, 2025

Section 250

Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 4 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 ... compliance 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 assessee did not turn up before this Bench. Although, Registry has issued various notices to the assessee

Thottippal Service Cooperative Bank, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward 2(5), Thrissur

In the result, we dismiss these I

ITA 553/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Divya RavindranFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 8O

while computing net interest income taxable in the hands of the Assessee. 5. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. All the grounds raised by the Assessee are directed against the denial of deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section

Amardeep Sandhu, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 92/CHANDI/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 92/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24 Shri Amardeep Sandhu, Vs The Ito, Jagjit Singh Anil Batra, Chandigarh. Sco 45, 2Nd Floor, Sector 41D, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cheps4310N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Anil Batra, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Ld. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.09.2025 Physical Hearing

For Appellant: Shri Anil Batra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. ld. CIT Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 195

Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 01.09.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 09.01.2025 passed for assessment year

Labh Singh Panchkula, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Panchkula

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

ITA 733/CHANDI/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 733/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Labh Singh, Ito, C/O M.K.Aggarwal & बनाम Ward 2, Associates, Panchkula Vs. Sco 1,First Floor, Sector 11, Panchkula "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Didps5445F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh Rishab Gupta, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Surinder Kaur Waraich, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28-08-2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.09-2025 आदेश/Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A), Confirming The Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessing Officer (Ao), In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Issued Statutory Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) On Various Dates. Since The Assessee Did Not Comply With The Notices, The Ao Levied A Penalty Of ₹40,000/- Under Section 271(1)(B), Being ₹10,000/- For Each Of Four Defaults. The Learned Cit(A) Confirmed The Levy.

For Appellant: Sh Rishab Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Surinder Kaur Waraich, Addl. CIT

Section 271(1)(b)

being ₹10,000/- for each of four defaults. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the levy. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that the assessee is an illiterate person and was unable to respond to all notices properly, and there ... four instances of default. The learned CIT(A) sustained the levy of penalty in appellate proceedings. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that the assessee is an illiterate individual who was unable to appreciate the implications of multiple statutory notices

Chandan Bansal, Panchkula vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 759/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Vikrant Kackaria, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 56

Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 01.09.2025 HYBRID HEARING O R D E R PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 06.06.2024 passed for assessment year