“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

DCIT, CC-3, Ludhiana, Kitchlu Nagar vs. Mani Ram Balwant Rai HUF, Civil Lines

In the result, Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1042/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1042/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Dcit, Mani Ram Balwant Rai, Huf, Central Circle-3, Vs Civil Lines, Opposite Session Court(Old) Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaghm1535C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. 43/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1042/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mani Ram Balwant Rai, Huf, The Dcit, Civil Lines, Opposite Session Court(Old) V Central Circle-3, Ludhiana. S Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaghm1535C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Bhalla, Ca & Shri Hunny Bajaj, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.09.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, CA and Shri Hunny Bajaj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

Date of Hearing : 17.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 01.09.2025 HYBRID HEARING O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in ITA No.1042/CHD/2024 & C.O. 43/CHD/2024 A.Y.2019-20 2 short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated

Life Eternal Trust, Nashik vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 916/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandralife Eternal Trust Cit(Exemption), Pune 1016, Shukla Lane, Vs. Nashik – 422001 Pan: Aaatl3389H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-09-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 3Section 80G

approval u/s 80G of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with such rejection of approval u/s 80G by Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that various details were submitted before the Ld. CIT(E) substantiating the genuineness

Ashutosh Biswas, Burdwan vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Burdwan

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

ITA 1070/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 69A

dated 18.03.2025, which has been passed against the penalty order u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act, dated 19.09.2022. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, The Ld. CIT(A) has erred ... case and the delay was not condoned. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. It was submitted that before the Ld. CIT(A) there was delay of 478 days and the delay occurred on account of the Chartered

M/S. Reotech Process Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corp. Ward-5(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1411/CHNY/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Krishna Kumar, JCIT

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

accordance with the provisions of statute. These grounds of appeal are, therefore, dismissed. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed a chart showing all the assessment years and dates in which 115BAA option via Form 10IC

Sportking India Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Circle-9(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 2223/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

appellant assessee. 3 Sportking India Ltd. 3.1 Aggrieved with the order dated 28.02.2013 of the Ld. CIT(A), the appellant assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal, who vide its order dated 25.07.2014 in ITA No.3405/Del/2013, remanded the appeal back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) as under: "Since

Jigneshbhai Sa vs. Ibhai Khorani, Surendranagarvs.Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Surendranagar

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

ITA 54/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Saini, Accountat Member & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaarray Ard S/Ita No.54/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing)

Section 147Section 274Section 69A

made by AO and dismissed the appeal of the appellant. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. At the outset itself, Learned Authorized Representative (Id. AR) for the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending that assessee could not represent

Damjibhai Lekhrajbhai Thavrani, Junagadh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Junagadh

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

ITA 239/RJT/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 239/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: (2008-09) बनाम Damjibhai Lekharjibhai Thavrani Income-Tax Officer, C/O. Sarda & Sarda (Ca), Sakar 1St Vs. Ito Ward – 1 Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Opp. Income Tax Office, Bhootnath Rajkumar College, Chamber, Rajkot 360001 Junagadh – 362001 "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan No. : Aeypt7701B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT (DR)

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

section 253(3) and 253(5) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel has explained the reasons for delay stating that assessee was suffered severe chest pain and was badly engaged for his medical ... preliminary issue. In the affidavit, it is submitted that assessee had undergone medical treatment and as a result, the assessee could not file appeal before the Tribunal in time. We note that the reasons given in the petition for condonation of delay were convincing and these reasons would constitute reasonable

Bhaveshkumar Mahendrabhai Maniyar, Junagadh vs. The ITO Ward-1, Junagadh.

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

ITA 234/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Saini, Accountat Member & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.234/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Physical Hearing) Bhavneshkumar Mahendrabhai Vs. Ito, Maniyar, Ward – 1, Prop.Of Shree Hari Enterprise, Junagadh Shop No.2, Rajkamal Apartment, Junagadh, Junagadh - 362001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afdpm3866Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 133ASection 147Section 250Section 253(3)Section 253(5)

appeal fees. He, however, submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate on his part. After getting information, he immediately filed appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, the ld. AR requested to condone the delay in filing before ITAT. 3. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative ... days and dismissed the appeal without discussing the appeal on merit. We have already condoned the delay of 249 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal by the assessee in para 4 of this order. Therefore, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remit the matter back

Anil Kumar Sah, Banka vs. ITO, WD-1(4), Bhagalpur

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

ITA 324/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 324/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Anil Kumar Sah,………………………....….………Appellant Near Bari Durga Mandir, Kajreli Road, Amarpur, Dist. Banka-813101, Bihar [Pan:Aqgps8735A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-1(4), Bhagalpur, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, R.N. Plaza, R B S S Road, Bhagalpur-812001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 29, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143Section 143(1)

assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 90 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee ... support of his claim, the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer is confirmed. 6. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following issues:- (1) For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.13,63,773/- on account

Moulimani Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- 1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 536/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. It has been stated that notices of hearing were issued to the wrong e-mail Id, i.e., ‘moulimaniImpexpl@gmail.com’ instead of ‘gandhi.himanshu92@yahoo.in’, which ... mentioned in Form 35. The CIT(A) passed order on 23.12.2024 and due date for filing of appeal before the Tribunal on 28.02.2025. It came to know about the appeal order while checking the status in Income-tax Portal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that

Moulimani Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 535/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

Moulimani Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 534/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

Moulimani Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- 1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 533/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

The Puna Kumbharia Group Co-Op Fruits and Vege Grow Society Limited, Surat vs. ACIT Circle 3(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 355/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.354 To 355/Srt/2025 Ays: (2017-18 & 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) The Puna Kumbharia Groud Co-Op. Vs. Acit, Fruits & Vege Grow Society Circle – 3(2), Limited, Surat Kela Yard Dumbhai, Puna Kumbhariya Road, Surat - 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaap1147N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate Respondent By Ms Namita Patel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2025

Section 250Section 253(3)Section 80P(2)(d)

assessee has filed affidavits of the President of the assessee-society, giving reason for delays in filing of appeals before the Tribunal. In the affidavit for AY 2017-18, it has been stated that the appeal should have been filed on or before 28.04.2024 but it was filed ... Puna Kumbharia Group Co-op. Fruits & Vege Grow Soc. Ltd. 9. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee filed a paper book and relied on the decisions in cases of (i) PCIT vs. Ashwinkumar

The Puna Kumbharia Group Co-Op Fruits and Vege Grow Society Limited, Surat vs. ACIT Circle 3(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 354/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Section 250Section 253(3)Section 80P(2)(d)

Tulsi Jewellers, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer - Ward 5, Navsari

In the result assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 947/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.946 & 947/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Tulsi Jewellers Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, बनाम/ 7-8, Saibaba Complex Navsari, 204, 2Nd Floor, Income Vs. Gauaarbag, Nr Lmp School Tax Office, Charpool, Awabaug, Chikhli Roa Bilimora, Tal: Navsari-396 445 Gandevi-396 321 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aakft 8368 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit-Dr & Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 07/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2025

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271ASection 69A

upheld the addition of Rs.13,20,000/- u/s.69A of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the appellant has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Let us first take up the additional ground raised by the appellant regarding the invalid sanction of the notice issued

Tulsi Jewellers, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Navsari

In the result assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 946/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271ASection 69A

Vijay Bhandari, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-7, Vapi

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

ITA 747/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.747/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Vijay Bhandari, Vs. Ito, Mataji Enterprises Shop No. Ug- National Faceless Assessment 17, Bhilad Plaza Shopping Centre Centre, Bhilad, Bhilad - 396105 Delhi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajtpb2990E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 250Section 253(3)Section 44ASection 68

days in terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit for delay in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit, it has been stated that the appellant is a small cloth merchant residing at Bhilad, Gujarat and sole bread earner ... appellant was dismissed by the CIT(A). 7. Aggrieved by the above order of the CIT(A), the appellant has preferred present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. A.R. submitted a paper book containing submission note, notarized copy of affidavit filed by the assessee, certifiedof original PAN, self certified copy

Pakalapati Padma Jyothi, West Godavari Dist vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tadepalligudem

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 275/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.275/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Pakalapati Padma Jyothi V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 D.No. 1-17, Singarajupalem Income Tax Office Muthyalamma Gudi Street Aayakar Bhawan Avapadu, Nellajerla D.No. 2-1-56/1, K.N. Road West Godavari District Tadepalligudem – 534101 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Blwpp5193B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparnavilluri, Sr.Ar

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

assessee, Ld.CIT(A)dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal by raising following grounds of appeal: - “1. The order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also

Sudharani Surisetty, Visakhapatnam vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 166/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.166/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sudharani Surisetty V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 29-2-34, Opposite Judge Court Flat No. 401, 4Th Floor Main, Dabagardens Prathyakshar Bhawan Prakasharaopeta Mvp Double Road Visakhapatnam – 530020 Visakhapatnam – 530020 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Cnbps4046N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparnavilluri, Sr.Ar

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250

Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal by raising following grounds of appeal: - “1. That the order u/s 147 r.w.. 144 & 144B of the IT Act, 1961, dt.12.03.2024