“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

JCIT(OSD) I/C. of DCIT -1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Zt Systems India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed as per our aforesaid observations

ITA 1729/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1729/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd), I/C. Dcit-1(3)(1), Mumbai (M.H.)

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. DR

Section 115Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 2(22)(a)Section 201Section 206C(7)Section 92C

assessee has been partly allowed. 5. Aggrieved with the aforesaid relief provided by the Ld.CIT(Appeals), the revenue has preferred the appeal before the Tribunal with the contention that the Ld.CIT(Appeals) was not correct in deleting the adjustment made by the TPO, relying on the decisions

Suresh Kumar Mahavir Prasad Beswal, Thane vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5156/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69A

limine for the reason that the assessee has not responded to the various notices sent by the assessee. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. The primary contention of the ld AR through revised grounds of appeal is that the notice

Nisar Ahmad, Bulandsahar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3)(1) Bulandshahar, Bulandshahar

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4005/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON'BLE (Vice President)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 144

perusing the records. 3. At the threshold, it is noted that there is delay of 19 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. After perusing the records, I am of the considered view that reasonable cause has been attributed to the assessee for delay in dispute in filing

Kuldeep Kumar, Hisar, Haryana vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 4172/DEL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2013-14 Kuldeep Kumar Dhani Near National Faceless Lakhpal Village Adampur Vs Appeal Centre , Delhi Tehsil Mandi Distt Hisar 125052 Pan No. Asopk2776R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Shubham Gupta, Advocate Respondent By Shri Om Parkash Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/08/2025 Order Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (In Short “Nfac”) Delhi Vide Order Dated 27-09-2023 Pertaining To A.Y. 2013-14 & Arises Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 26-03-2022 U/S 143(3) R.W.S144 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

vide his order dated 26-03-2022 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4 5. ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that no notice received to the assessee and both the lower authorities passed

Ve Commercial Vehicles Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-5, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1100/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35

vide order dated 20.02.2023, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding action of assessing officer

Jagdish Beniwal, Gandhidham vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Barmer

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

ITA 867/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Moved A Condonation Petition Explaining That The Delay Occurred Due To The Assessee Being Unaware Of The Status Of The Appeal Before The Cit(A) & The Lapse On The Part Of His Erstwhile Authorised Representative, Who Failed To Communicate The Outcome Or Advise Timely Further Action. It Was Submitted That The Assessee Had Re-Engaged Counsel Only After Becoming Aware Of The Adverse Order & Immediate Steps Were Taken Thereafter To Prefer The Present Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anuradha, Addl. CIT DR

Section 144

Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 289 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has moved a condonation petition explaining that the delay occurred due to the assessee being unaware of the status of the appeal before ... bona fide and absence of mala fides is apparent, we are inclined to condone the delay of 289 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. On merits, the appeal arises from an ex parte assessment order dated 23.12.2019 passed by the Assessing Officer under section

Santosh Sharma, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Jodhpur

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

ITA 859/JODH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Moved A Condonation Petition Explaining That The Delay Was Caused Due To Non-Receipt Of Communication From The Earlier Representative, Who Neither Apprised The Assessee Of The Appellate Outcome Nor Advised Timely Remedial Action. It Has Been Further Submitted That Upon Obtaining Knowledge Of The Order, The Assessee Promptly Engaged New Counsel & Has Been Diligently Pursuing The Matter. A Prayer Was Made To Condone The Delay In The Interest Of Justice.

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anuradha, Addl. CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

were sustained. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 217 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has moved a condonation petition explaining that the delay was caused due to non-receipt of communication from the earlier representative, who neither ... denovo adjudication after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6.1 Accordingly, the delay of 217 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned. The impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the entire matter is restored to the file

Tariq Ahmad Mir S/O Mohad Abdulla Mir Tariq General Store Gund Ramban Banihal, Banihal Ramban vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Udhampur 103 Ward No 10 Dhar Road Udhampur, Udhampur

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

ITA 92/ASR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 92/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18

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

demonetization period, to the satisfaction of the appellate authority. I.T.A. No. 92/Asr/2025 5 Assessment Year: 2017-18 5. Now the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal on the ground contained in the memorandum of appeal. 6. The ld. AR of the assessee in course of hearing, submitted a short

Abdul Hamid Nachar, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Rajbagh Srinagar

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for

ITA 166/ASR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sh. Tasir Ul Islam & Sh. Zubair Khan, Advs

Section 147Section 249Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

present appeal is not liable to be admitted. The appeal is infructuous and is, therefore, dismissed.” 9. Now, the matter is in appeal before the tribunal on various grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal in form 36 , out of which one of the grounds being that the assessee

Abdul Hamid Nachar, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Rajbagh

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for

ITA 161/ASR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Tasir Ul Islam & Sh. Zubair Khan, Advs

Section 147Section 249Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

Abdul Hamid Nachar, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Rajbagh Srinagar

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for

ITA 158/ASR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. Tasir Ul Islam & Sh. Zubair Khan, Advs

Section 147Section 249Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

Bikram Masih, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1), Amritsar

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

ITA 569/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: None (Adjournment application)

Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

assessee came to know about the passing of the ex-parte order and thereafter he contacted a new counsel through whom this appeal before the Tribunal has been filed belated by 238 (Two Hundred Thirty Eight) days. It is stated that since the delay was not intentional, the delay

Shabbir Saifuddin Makati, Jamnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1), Jamnagar

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

ITA 419/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.419/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shabbir Safuddini Makati बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(6), Jamnagar, Aaykar /Vs. C-2/333, Gidc, Shankar Bhwan, Jamnagar-361 004 Tekari, Udyog Nagar, Jamnagar-361004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acdpm8899E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

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

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(3)

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 badly engaged for medical treatment of his parents who were aged ... affidavit, it is submitted that assessee was engaged in medical treatment of his parents and as a result, the assessee could not file appeal before the Tribunal. We note that reasons given in the petition for condonation of delay were convincing and these reasons would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause

Matel Hardware, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO WD 3(1)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 204/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 204/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) Matel Hardware Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shrddha Park Street No.2, Shrddha 3(1)(1), Rajkot, Aaykar बनाम Park Main Road, Ram Chowk, Bhawan, Rajkot-360001 /Vs. Rajkot-360002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aazfm6158L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

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

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(3)

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 suffering severe chest pain and was badly engaged for his medical ... preliminary issue. In the affidavit, it is submitted that assessee was undergone medical treatment and as a result, the assessee could not file appeal before the Tribunal in time. We note that reasons given in the petition for condonation of delay were convincing and these reasons would constitute reasonable

Umesh Ramjibhai Pavasiya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(3)(5), Surat

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

ITA 925/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.925/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Umesh Ramjibhai Pavasiya, Vs. Ito, 102, Vallabh Nagar Society, Ward -3(3)(5), Varachha Road, Opp – Baroda Surat Prestige, Surat - 395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afjpp2768Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/08/2025

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 68

dismissed the appeal for non-submission and non-pursuing. 5. 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 both lower authorities have passed ex parte orders without hearing the appellant on merit

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7 Pune, Pune vs. Kumar Housing Corporation Private Limited, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 341/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

desires, consequent to giving appeal effect since the above sums cannot be brought to tax twice. The Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal against the relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. 30. So far as the additions sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on account

Shri Ganesh Sahakari Sakhar Kharkhana Limited, Ahmednagar vs. DCIT Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar

ITA 119/PUN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.119/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Ganesh Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., A/P. Ranjangaon Khurd, Tal.-Rahata, Dist.-Ahmednagar – 413719 Vs. Dcit, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar Pan: Aaeas0636H अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2510, 2511 & 2512/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Shri Ganesh Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., A/P. Ranjangaon Khurd, Tal.-Rahata, Dist.-Ahmednagar – 413719 Vs. Dcit, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar Pan : Aaeas0636H अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hanmant Dattatry Dhavale Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 15-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Above Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 20.12.2024 & 25.10.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)"] Pertaining To Assessment Years ("Ays”) 2009-10 & 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. Ita No. 2510/Pun/2024 For Ay 2010-11 Is Taken Up As A Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri Hanmant Dattatry DhavaleFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 155(19)Section 254Section 40A(2)

Thus, the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant on this issue is partly allowed. 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: "1. On the fact and in the circumstance of the case and in law of the learned NFAC Commissioner

Kumar Urban Development Pvt. Ltd (Successor Kumar Housing Corpn. Pvt Ltd), Pune vs. DCIT Circle 14, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2875/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

Kumar Urban Development Pvt. Ltd (Successor Kumar Housing Corporation Pvt Ltd), Pune vs. DCIT Circle 14, Pune

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

ITA 2874/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

Shri Ganesh Ssk Ltd, Ahmednagar vs. D.C.I.T, Ahmednagar, Circle-Ahmednagar

ITA 2512/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Hanmant Dattatry DhavaleFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 155(19)Section 254Section 40A(2)

Thus, the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant on this issue is partly allowed. 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: “1. On the fact and in the circumstance of the case and in law of the learned NFAC Commissioner