“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

Ankit Chauhan, Delhi vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 36(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1018/DEL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44ASection 80

failure as provided under section 273B of the Act. 6.Aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Ld. AR of the assessee reiterated the same arguments which were advanced before the Ld. CIT(A). He further submitted that the matter

Leelu Ram, Gurugram vs. Income Tax Officer, Gurugam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 896/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Leelu Ram, S/O-Mangal Singh, C/O-Ysr Gurugram & Associates, Plot No. 214, Basement, Sector-47, Haryana Pan: Apspr3189Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. M.R. Sahu, Ca Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

afresh after making requisite enquiries and proper verification with regard to taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest

Sudarsan De, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(1)(1), Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5176/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69A

appeal was filed before Ld.CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on the strength of following grounds of appeal:- 1. “On the peculiar facts of the case, the proceedings carried out by the learned AO/NFAC

Income Tax Officer Ward- 11(3), New Delhi vs. Highrise Securities and Trading Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 30/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Ito, Vs Highrise Securities & Trading Ward-11(3), Pvt.Ltd., G-19, S/F, Room No.410A, Vijay Chokh, Near Tiwari C.R.Building, Complex, Laxmi Nagar, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110092. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aaach3402Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Sudesh Garg, Adv., Bhavya Garg, Adv. & Shri Shubham Sharma, Adv. Date Of Hearing 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

after considering the facts and the valuation report, had deleted the additions. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal wherein following grounds of appeal are taken by the revenue:- 1. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Income Tax Officer, C R Building Delhi vs. Spectra Televentures Private Limited, South Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 225/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Ito, Vs Spectra Televentures Pvt.Ltd., Ward-24(1), B-170B, Gf, Khasra No.82, 83, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, 84, 86, 91-94, Maidan Gari Delhi-110002. Extension, South Delhi, Delhi-110068. Pan-Aancs0303C Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Assessee By Ms. Rano Jain, Adv., Mansi Jain, Ca, Pranshu Singhal, Ca, Sakshi Rustagi, Adv. & Mudit Dewan, Adv. Date Of Hearing 27.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2025 Order

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

vide impugned order dated 30.11.2023 allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal wherein the solitary ground of appeal taken by the Revenue is with respect to the deletion of the addition made

Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 506/CTK/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack19 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 234CSection 270ASection 92CSection 92D

been passed after considering the directions of the DRP u/s 144C(5) of the Act, dated 30.09.2024. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the final assessment order dated October ... r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made and the paper book filed have been examined. The Ld. AR stated that the decision

Sakinabai Saifuddin Makati, Jamnagar vs. AO, Aaykar Bhawan, Jamnagar

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

ITA 403/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.403/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) Sakinabai Saifuddin Makati बनाम Income Tax Officer, /Vs. C-2/333 Gidc Shanker Tekri, Ward-3(1), Jamnagar, Aaykar Udyog Nagar, Udyog Nagar S.O. Bhawan, Jamnagar-361 005 Jamnagar-361004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aatpv770N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Buddh, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 10Section 144Section 250

reasons for condonation of delay and urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay of 591 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. A perusal of the reasons and sufficient cause explained by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, gives us an impression of existence of mitigating

Aalidhra Texfab Private Limited, Surat vs. CPC Current Jurisdiction- DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 153/SRT/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.153/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2023-24) (Hybrid Hearing) Aalidhara Texfab Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Cpc, 2, Functional Estate, New Industrial Current Jurisdiction: Estate, Road No.6, Udhna, Surat – Dcit, Circle – 1(1)(1), 394210, Gujarat Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aasca8215E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/08/2025

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 250

manufacturing in AY 2023-24. He dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that while filing the return for the year under consideration, the appellant

Shri Pramodbhai Bhikubhai Desai, Valsad vs. ITO, Ward 7, Vapi

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

ITA 143/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.143/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Pramodbhai Bhikhubhai Desai, Vs. The Ito, Desaiwad, Palsana, Udwada Rs Ward – 7, Udwada, Valsad - 396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Atppd1828D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/08/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 250

merits of the addition. ITA No.143/SRT/2025/AY.2012-13 Promodbhai B Desai 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee filed a paper book, which includes various details and submissions made before the lower authorities

Vithalbhai Harjibhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward3(2)(4), Surat

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

ITA 138/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.138/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Vithalbhai Harjibhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, 101-102, Harihari Society, Katargam Ward – 3(2)(4), Surat - 395004 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abcpp0940K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Kamlesh Bhatt, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/08/2025

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons ITA No.138/SRT/2025/AY.2016-17 Vithalbhai Harjibhai Patel for delay in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit, it has been stated that order of CIT(A) dated 18.06.2024 had been dismissed due to non- compliance of the notices of hearing ... upheld the findings of the AO and dismissed the appeal. 8. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee filed a paper book, which includes letter dated 13.12.2018 with cash book and ledger

Shhlok Triton Associates, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 638/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.638/Srt/2024 Assessment Year:(2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Shhlok Triton Associates, Vs. Pcit – 1, F.P. No. 388, Paikee Udhna Surat Darwaja, Ring Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aclfs6819A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/08/2025

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 263

terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an application giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee submitted that the delay in filing appeal was due to unavoidable medical exigency. The assessee was ITA No.638/SRT/2024/AY 2014-15 Shhlok ... together with the issues discussed in order u/s 263 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of ld. PCIT, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee has filed two paper books including various details filed before lower authorities and compilation

The Pursottam Farmers Co.Op. Cotton Ginning & Pressing Society Ltd., Surat vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ciracle-2(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 523/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.499/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Dcit, Vs. The Pursottam Farmers Co-Op. Circle – 2(1)(1), Cotton Grnning & Pressing Soc. Surat Ltd., Jahangirpura Gin., Jahangirpura, Rander – 395009, "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaat3000A (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.523/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) The Pursottam Farmers Co-Op. Vs. Dcit, Cotton Grnning & Pressing Soc. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Jahangirpura Gin., Jahangirpura, Surat Rander – 395009, "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaat3000A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Akshay M. Modi, Ca Date Of Hearing 23/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/08/2025

Section 143(3)Section 194A(3)(v)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

appeal was partly allowed by CIT(A). 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), both the assessee and revenue have 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) Kutch District

Dy. Commissoner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat vs. The Pursottam Farmers Co Op Cotton Grnning and Pressing Society Ltd, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 499/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 194A(3)(v)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

Arihant Enterprise, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 590/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 270ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68

addition u/s. 68 with taxability u/s 115BBE. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. Ground No. 1 – Rejection of books of accounts Ground Nos. 5 & 6 – Addition of Rs.43,88,500/- u/s 68 of the Act., Ground

Sunanda Constructions, Pune vs. DCIT, Central Circle 2(2), Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 784/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva, Addl.CIT

Section 132

dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 7. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Assessment Order is invalid

Sunand Constructions, Pune vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(2), Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 783/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva, Addl.CIT

Section 132

Shri Radhika Seva Trust, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1285/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 1Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. There is a delay of 103 days in filing of both the appeals before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed separate condonation applications along with affidavits explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents ... refused to grant approval u/s 80G of the Act. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(Exemption), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1) The Hon'ble CIT (Exemption), Pune erred in law and on facts in rejection of application

Shri Radhika Seva Trust, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1284/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 1Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Sujai Anand Reddy, Chennai

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

ITA 617/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.617/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sujai Anand Reddy, No. 4, 10Th Street, Nandanam, Income Tax, Central Circle 2(3), Chennai 600 035. Chennai. [Pan: Aakps5124P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Mohan Das, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 19, Chennai, For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Appellant-Revenue Raised 6 Grounds Of Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri K. Mohan Das, CA

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

Having aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising aforementioned grounds. 5 I.T.A. No.617/Chny/25 6. The ld. DR Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT submits that the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained investment

Jaldhi Overseas Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT/DCIT, International Taxation-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 366/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.366/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 V. Jaldhi Overseas Pte. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of #25-60, Tong Eng Building, 101, Cecil Income Tax, International Street, Singapore 069533. Taxation, Dcit, Intl. Tax 1(2), C/O. Bothra Shipping Services Private Chennai. Limited, Vasundhara, 9Th Floor, Unit-A, 2/7 Sarat Bose Road, L.R. Sarani S.O., Kalkata, West Bengal 700 020. [Pan: Aadcj0165F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Ashik Shah, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 44B

final assessment order dated 16.12.2024 was completed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising following grounds: Jaldhi Oversears Pte. Ltd. :: 3 :: 1. The Ld. AO and Ld. DRP (hereinafter collectively referred as 'lower authorities') have ... completed the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act dated 16.12.2024. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the above grounds. 7. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted the following written submissions: A. Article