“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

Associated Forex Services Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3), New Delhi, Income Tax Department

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limne

ITA 1699/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1699/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 बनाम Associated Forex Services Limited, Income Tax Officer, B-214, C.R. Park, New Delhi. Vs. Ward-3(3), Pan No.Aaaca8089J C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 40A(3)

diseases and due to this the director was also on stress. The 3 assessee explained that the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was unintentional and without any malafide intention. 6. However, we observed that all the above submissions of the assesseen made in the petition were without ... early as in September, 2023. Therefore, in our view the assessee has not properly explained the delay of 445 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and thus, we reject the application seeking for condonation of delay. 4 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bhaane Studio Private Limited (Formerly Known As Camp Sma Pvt Ltd), New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 5(2), Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 1691/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1691/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Bhaane Studio Private Limited Acit, (Formerly Known As Camp Sma P. Ltd) Vs. Circle-5(2), F-88, Okhla Industrial Area, C.R. Building, Phase-1, New Delhi. I.P. Estate, Pan No.Aakcs1241G Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 68

order immediately the assessee took steps to obtain a copy of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and filed appeal before the Tribunal, thus, causing a delay of 385 days. Ld. Counsel therefore submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is not due to 2 negligence or lack ... part of the assessee but solely for the reasons beyond its control, thus, the assessee prayed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld. DR had no serious objection. 5. Heard rival submissions. On going through the petition for condonation of delay along with

Kn Support Services Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5774/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalkn Support Services Pvt.Ltd., Dcit, 30Th Floor, M3M International Circle 1(1), Financial Centre, Tower-1, Vs. Gurgaon, Golf Course Extensions Road, Haryana Sector 66, Badshapur, Haryana -122101. Pan-Aajck0720B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 115BSection 115JSection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

impugned order dt 29.10.2024, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of CIT(A), assessee preferred the present appeal before the tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the intimation passed under section

Kworks Technologies Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5773/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalkworks Technologies Private Dcit, Limited, 30Th Floor, M3M Circle 1(1), International Financial Centre, Vs. Gurgaon, Tower-1, Golf Course Extensions Haryana Road, Sector 66, Badshapur, Haryana -122101. Pan-Aajck0865H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 115JSection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

impugned order dt 21.10.2024, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of CIT(A), assessee preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal: 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the intimation passed under section

Income Tax Officer Ward 48(1) New Delhi, Delhi vs. M/S. Chaukers, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5718/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

deleted the protective addition made in the hands of the assessee firm. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in quashing

Jai Prakash Virmani, Faridabad vs. Dc ACIT Cent Faridabad 2 New, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4764/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwaljai Prakash Virmani, Dcit/Acit, Shop No.7, Sector 58, Central Circle, Faridabad, Haryana-121004 Vs. Faridabad. Pan-Ahrpp4614R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M.K. Gupta, Ca Department By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2025 O R D E R [ Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon [Cit(A) In Short], Dated 04.09.2024 In Appeal No.10863/2018-19 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Asst. Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Survey U/S 133A Was Carried Out At The Business Premises Of The Assessee On 23.01.2019. During The Course Of Survey Certain Loos Papers Were Found & Impounded Having Entries Of Cash Withdrawals & The Undisclosed Expenditure On Constructions Of House, Besides Other Documents Were Also Found Jai Prakash Virmani Vs. Dcit /Acit & Impounded. Based On These Entries Assessee Had Offered Additional Income In The Statements Recorded During The Course Of Survey Of Rs.1,28,34,958/-. Thereafter, Vide Letter Dated 20.01.2020, The Assessee Retracted Partly From The Additional Income So Offered During The Survey. The Case Of The Assessee Was Taken Up For Scrutiny & Assessment Was Completed Wherein The Ao Observed That Income Offered By The Assessee Towards Unexplained Investment In The Construction Of House Is Taxable U/S 69 Of The Act. The Ao Further Observed That The Provisions Of Section 115Bbe Are Applicable On The Income Of Rs.17,66,380/- Offered By The Assessee On Account Of Undisclosed Investment In Constructions House.

Section 115BSection 133ASection 234BSection 250Section 69

assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who04.09.2024 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT has erred

Sunita Bhardwaj, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 63(1), New Delhi

ITA 1435/DEL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

against addition of INR 1,75,59,728/- made by the AO. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal wherein assessee has taken many grounds of appeal which were filed in concise manner in terms of the directions of Co-ordinate Bench

Sunita Bhardwaj, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 61(1), New Delhi

ITA 1434/DEL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sunita Bhardwaj, Vs Acit, 1/2, Taj Apartments, Circle-63(1), R.K.Puram, Sector-12, Delhi Delhi-110022. Pan-Ahfpb1928E Appellant Respondent

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Sunita Bhardwaj, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 61(1), New Delhi

ITA 1432/DEL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2015-2016

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Sainik Co-Operative House Building Society Ltd, Jammu and Kashmir vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir

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

ITA 701/ASR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. &

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 24Section 250Section 69

appellate order, even though it is seen that adjournment has been sought on two different occasions. 6. Now, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal. In course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed a short paper

Ishar Infrastructure Develpopers Private Limited, Bathinda vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bathinda

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

ITA 686/ASR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 686/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 32(2)Section 72Section 72(3)

ground of appeal taken by the appellant is dismissed.” I.T.A. No. 686/Asr/2024 7 Assessment Year: 2022-23 6. Now the matter is in appeal before the tribunal on the ground contained in the memorandum of appeal. The Ld. AR of the assessee in course of hearing has submitted that

Mohammad Hanifa, Chumik, Baroo, Kargil (Ladakh) vs. Income Tax Officer, Srinagar

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

ITA 678/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ishtiyaq Ahmad Wani, C.A

Section 10(26)Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessee and upholding the estimation of the AO as reasonable. 3 I.T.A. No. 678/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 5. In course of appeal before the Tribunal, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted a short paper book containing 54 pages consisting of copy of Shop Registration Certificate issued by administration

Sainik Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Sainik Colony vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward-1, Jammu

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

ITA 406/ASR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. &

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 24Section 250Section 69

Gajendra Kumar, Mahoba vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2 (2)(4 ), Banda

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

ITA 94/ALLD/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad28 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Gajendra Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 526, Rathaur Colony, Jaitpur, Ward-2(2)(4), Banda Belatal, Mahoba, U.P. Pan:Bitpk6827P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 3.01.2025, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ito, Ward-2(2)(4), Banda Dated 21.12.2019 Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Learned Cit (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Disallowing Appeal & Confirming The Addition Made By A.O. Of Rs. 25, 90,414/- As Cash Deposits Into Bank Account Under Section 69A Of It Act, 1961 Because All Notices Were Issued U/S 250 Of The Act On Itba Portal & No Physical Notice Was Issued To Appellant On Address Mentioned In Filed Itr & Filed Appeal & Has Disallowed Appeal Without Considering This Fact That Appellant Lives At Village Jaitpur Post Belataal, District Mahoba (U.P.) & Is Unknown About Information Technology. 2. That The Learned Cit (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Disallowing Appeal & Confirming The Addition Made By A.O. Of Rs. 25, 90,414/- As Cash Deposits Into Bank Account Under Section 69A Of It Act, 1961 Without Considering This Fact That Appeal Was Filed By Advocate Dinesh Gupta Who Was Expired & Email Id In Profile Of Appellant Was Update By Him. Appellant Was Unknown About Login Id & Password Of Portal & Email Id Which Was Maintained By Late Advocate Dinesh Gupta.

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 221(1)Section 250Section 69A

even aware of the issue of 4 Gajendra Kumar A.Y. 2017-18 notices. The reason for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was also because of this lack of awareness. On the merits of the matter, it was submitted that, while making the addition

Tanuja Chhatoi, Cuttack vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 223/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumar(Through Virtual Hearing At Kolkata ) आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.223/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Tanuja Chhatoi, Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Cuttack Balabhadrapur, Chhatra Bazar, Arunodaya Market, Cuttack Pan No. :Afjpc 8959 E (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 : 21/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 44ASection 69A

furnishing the relevant documents in regard to her claim during the course of appellate proceedings. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Ld.AR before us submitted that the assessee is a lady and had not cooperated in the assessment proceedings. It was the submission

Kosuru Krishnaveni, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 414/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 414/Viz/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) Kosuru Krishnaveni V. Income Tax Officer - Ward – 3(3) Flat No. 401, Jeevan Visakha Apartments Income Tax Office Mntc Colony, Seethammadhara Infinity Towers, Sankaramatam Road Visakhapatnam – 530013 Visakhapatnam – 530016 [Pan:Aotpd2598D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 147Section 69

outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 212 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with ... beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 212 days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 212 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. Page No. 3 Kosuru Krishnaveni 4. Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter

Samatham Gangadhara Rao, Bhimavaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bhimavaram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 320/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.320/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Samatham Gangadhara Rao V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 D.No. 19-22-5/3 Income Tax Office Sunkara Brahmaiah Nagar, J.P. Road, Sivaraopet Sbi Colony Bhimavaram – 534201 Andhra Pradesh Bhimavaram – 534201 [Pan:Amyps7071D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt A. Aruna, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 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 the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts

Kehar Singh, Sirsa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sirsa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 701/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: The Tribunal.

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Surinder Kaur Waraich, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 194QSection 44A

submissions, upheld the action of CPC and dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved against the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 3. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a Kachha Arhtiya and earns commission income only on the sale of agricultural produce

Mahinder Pal, Mandi vs. Income Tax Officer, Mandi

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

ITA 916/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 916/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mahinder Pal, The Ito, Mahinder Fruit Company, Vs Mandi. Chail Chowk, Mandi. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Avgpp5393J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate With Ms. Isha Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Isha Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 69A

Date of Hearing : 17.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 HYBRID 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 23.07.2024 passed for assessment year

Sonalben Sanjaysinh Vihol, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Patan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1828/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1827/Ahd/2024 & 1828/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2016-17 Respectively Sonalben Sanjaysinh Vihol The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/31, Ishan Residency Ward-1, V/S. R C Technical Road Patan – 384 265 Ghatlodia Ahmedabad – 380 061 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Alxpv 4350 Q (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chirag Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Of Even Date 30/07/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2014-2015 & 2016-17. Ita Nos.1827 & 1828/Ahd/2024 Sonalben Sanjaysinh Vihol Vs. Ito Asst.Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Chirag Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

were fulfilled, therefore, he upheld the assessment order. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee has come in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and gone through the record. Though, there was a failure on the part