← All Phrases

“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

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

ITA 2511/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
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

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

ITA 2510/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

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. 2

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

Venkatraman Jayashree Priyadharshini, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-3, Chennai

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

ITA 64/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.64/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Venkatraman Jayashree Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Priyadharshini, No. 8/5, Income Tax, Rajaji 1St Street, Lake Area, Non Corporate Circle 3(1), Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai. [Pan:Adapj3317L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Raised 5 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Giving Relief To The Extent Of ₹.88,85,000/- Under Section 54 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 54Section 54F

long term capital gains at ₹.2,01,70,855/- by giving benefit to an extent of ₹.88,85,000/-. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in challenging the quantum addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) to an extent

Indira Devi, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1314/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1314/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Indira Devi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 29/8, New No. 38-1-2, Non Corporate Ward 4(1), Kankar Street, Tondiarpet, Chennai. Chennai 600 081. [Pan:Abhpi3067M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Hitesh, Advocate For Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.03.2025 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A)-7, Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 7 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer To 2

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh, Advocate for Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)

Officer to an extent of ₹.5,81,810.40 and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The ld. AR Shri Hitesh, C.A. submits that the assessee has deposited the said amount in her bank account which is reflected

Smt Sushama Rajesh Rao, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 49/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2012-13 Sushama Rajesh Rao, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.159, Priyadarshani, R. T. Nagar, Of Income Tax, Mla Layout, Circle – 6(2)(1), Bangalore – 560 032. Bangalore. Pan : Acypr 5251 J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 234BSection 250Section 49Section 50(2)Section 50C

Assessment Order, the assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A) who dismissed the assessee’s appeal and therefore assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal who passed an Order in ITA No.2734/Bang/2017 on 24.01.2018 restoring the matter back to the file of the learned CIT(A). Page

Ms. Milan Electric Corporation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee stands allowed, in terms of our observations, as indicated above

ITA 857/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Blems. Milan Electric Corporation Ito, Ward-19(2)(3), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. MotiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

been sustained by the ld. CIT(A). 5. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision of ld. CIT(A), assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which is under consideration. 6. At the outset, ld. AR representing the assessee submitted that the entire purchases which are treated as non-genuine or bogus

Payal Kishore Kulchandani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 22(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3647/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3647/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-2013) Payal Kishore Kulchandani V/S. Income Tax Officer 1201, Badrinath, Opp. Khar बिाम Ward22(2)(5), Gymkhana, 15Th Road, Mumbai Khar West, Mumbai 400052. Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug,Parel, Mumbai - 400012. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aappk0518C Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54

3647/Mum/2025 Ay 2012-2013 Payal Kishore Kulchandani dismissed the appeal vide order dated 09.04.2025. The assessee has now filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4.1. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted the following chronology of events: Sr. Date Particulars No. 1. 28.08.2009 Agreement entered into for purchase of new ‘under

Pradeep D Charya ITO 19.2.4, Mumbai vs. Parasmal Fozharaj Sanghvi HUF, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5832/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.5832/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito 19(2)(4), Mumbai V/S. Parasmal Fozharaj 507, Piramal Chambers, बिाम Sanghvi Huf Lalbaug, Mumbai 400012 10/2 Atul Niwas, Khetwadi Road Corner, Mumbai 400004 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaahp5379M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya & Shri Hansraj Sanghvi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. Dr स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya & ShriFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, SR
Section 250

purchases at the same rate as that of other genuine purchases. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), revenue has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. All the grounds of appeal relate to the rate applied on bogus purchases. 4. Before us, Ld. DR has pointed out that

Mamta Trehan, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 63(1), Delhi

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

ITA 708/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 40aSection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, DELHI BEFORE SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. MANISH AGARWAL

Sh. Anshul Gupta, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward-1(1), Faridabad

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

ITA 701/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2014-15 Anshul Gupta 1627 Sector - I.T.O Ward1(1) Faridabad 28 Faridabad 121002 Vs Haryana Pan No. Aiept5090P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Shaantanu Jain, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Dayainder Singh Sidhu Cit (Dr ) Date Of Hearing: 18/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18/08/2025

Section 147

before the Ld. NFAC who vide his order dated 05.06.2024 has dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution against which the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 4. The Ld AR of the assessee submitted that the orders were passed without being heard to the assessee. He also submitted that

Promilla Mathur, Delhi vs. AO, Civic Centre, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3852/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2012-13 Promilla Mathur, Vs. Cit(A)/Nfac D-55, Gulmohar Park, Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Afkpm7548E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Alok Mital, Ca Respondent By : Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025 Order This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.04.2025 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On The Following Ground:- 1. The Order Passed By The Ai/Cit(A) Is Bad In Law, Wrong On Facts & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. That In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ao/Cit(A) Has Erred, Both On Facts & In Law, In Assessing / Upholding The Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 14,25,293/- As Unexplained Despite Producing Documents On Record.

For Appellant: Shri Alok Mital, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

assessee for the year under consideration. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 3. As regards, addition of Rs. 2,21,174/- against credit card of Kotak Mahindra Bank is concerned, I note that assessee claimed that

Mahendra Singh Jain, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-1(4), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3848/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2012-13 Mahendra Singh Jain, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ch. No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam, Ward 1(4), Ghaziabad Rdc, Rajnagar, Ghaziabad (Pan: Afhpj7049A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. & Shri Govil Aggarwal, Ca Respondent By : Shri Sangeet Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025 Order Per Mahavir Singh, Vp : This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.2.2025 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A), Patnan For Ay 2012-13 On The Following Grounds:- 1. Because, The Order Of The Ld. Lower Authority Is Bad In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstance Of The Case. 2. Because, The Cit(A) Grossly Erred In Sustaining The Impugned Proceeding & Assessment Order Whereby All The Notices U/S. 142(1)/144 & Impugned Order Were Issued In The Name Of Deceased Person Against The Provisions Of Section 159 Of The Act Hence, The Order Is Null & Void.

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Sangeet Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 159

life savings. 2. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 43 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. After hearing both the sides and perusing the records, I am of the of the considered view that the reasonable cause for the same has been

Komal Adlakha, Gurugram vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Gurugram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3652/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2019-20 Vs. Ito, Komal Adlakha, A06, Parsvnath Green Ville, Ward-2(2), Sohna Road, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan: Autpa5180C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, 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 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

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

Bhagwan Precision, Rohtak vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

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

ITA 5174/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanbhagwan Precision, Vs. Acit, 35, Subhash Nagar, Model Town, Rohtak. Rohtak – 124 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aajfb6625K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Shri Ayush Garg, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2025 Date Of Order : 18.08.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Addl./Jcit (Appeals)-6, Chennai [“Ld. Jcit(A)”, For Short] Dated 28.09.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice Brief Fact Of The Case That Assessee Is A Firm Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Sale Of Precision Turned Parts. The Works Of The Assessee Is At Industrial Part Iv, Plot No.9 V, Begampur (Haridwar)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 44ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

terms of the directions given in the said order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which was allowed by the Tribunal by virtue of the impugned order. The Tribunal took the view that the provisions of section 80- IA(7) with regard

Rajesh Singh Negi, Nanital vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3)(1) Nanital, Nanital

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 92/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Rajesh Singh Negi, Ward-2(3)(1), House No.50, Vs. Nanital. Jind State, Ward No.3, Nainital, Uttarakhand-263136 Pan-Aakpn3462D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Saurabh Gupta, Ca Department By Shri Aman Pal Singh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/08/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘The Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short) In Appeal No. Nfac/2016-17/10008911 Dated 13.08.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, From The Perusal Of The Appellate Order, It Is Seen That The Appeal Is Filed Delayed By 193 Days, For Which Delay Condonation Petition Along With An Affidavit Of Assessee Is Filed. In The Said Petition It Is Stated That The Assessee Was Under Bonafide Rajesh Singh Negi Vs. Ito Impression That The Counsel Of The Assessee Who Was Handling The Appeal Was Taken Care Of The Appellate Proceedings. However, Counsel Had Not Communicated The Status Of The Appeal, Therefore & When The Assessee Pursued Him, It Has Come To The Knowledge That The Appeal Was Already Dismissed Ex-Parte By Ld. Cit(A). Thus, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal Had Occurred. It Was Further Submitted That The Delay Was Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate & Solely Due To The Failure On The Part Of The Counsel To Communicate The Status & Out Come Of The Appeal Before Cit(A) In Timely Manner, Therefore, The Assessee Requested For Condonation Of Delay. In This Regard Reliance Is Also Placed In The Case Of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 Scc 123 (Sc) & Collector Of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 Itr 471 (Sc).

come to the knowledge that the appeal was already dismissed ex-parte by ld. CIT(A). Thus, the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal had occurred. It was further submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and solely due to the failure on the part

Bardc Bank, Bhatkal vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 295/PAN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2014-15 Bardc Bank Bhatkal Next To Bsnl Tower, Bhatkal, Uttara Kannada. Pan:Aaaap1731G . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Ravish Rao [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80P

material available on record and countenanced the action of Ld. AO thus confirmed 80P(2) denial. Further aggrieved, the assessee came in present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Without touching merits & grounds, we noted that, the appeal against assessment order was filed during the subsistence of COVID- 19 Pandemic

The Large Size Co-Op Society Limited, Kamavarapukota, West Godavari vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Eluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 420/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 418, 419 & 420/Viz/2025 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19) The Large Size Co-Op Society Ltd, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kamavarapukota. Ward-1, Pan: Aadat0456D Eluru. (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ca प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2025 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of : 14/08/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

outset, it is noticed from the record that there is a delay of 91 days in filing the present three appeals before the Tribunal and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons, similar to the three appeals, which are extracted herein below: ITA Nos. 418, 419 & 420/Viz/2025 ... parte order and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: 7. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before us that the Ld. CIT (A) has passed

The Large Size Co-Op Society Ltd. Kamavarapukota, West Godavari vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Eluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 419/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 418, 419 & 420/Viz/2025 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19) The Large Size Co-Op Society Ltd, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kamavarapukota. Ward-1, Pan: Aadat0456D Eluru. (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ca प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2025 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of : 14/08/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

outset, it is noticed from the record that there is a delay of 91 days in filing the present three appeals before the Tribunal and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons, similar to the three appeals, which are extracted herein below: ITA Nos. 418, 419 & 420/Viz/2025 ... parte order and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: 7. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before us that the Ld. CIT (A) has passed

Varudu Sujatha, Srikakulam Dist vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Srikakulam

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

ITA 417/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 417/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Varudu Sujatha, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Saravakota, Ward-1, Srikakulam Dist. Srikakulam. Pan: Agypv1948A (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 14/08/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)

appeal and dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also

Grk Constructions, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 416/VIZ/2025[2014-25]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2025AY 2014-25

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 415 & 416/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Grk Constructions, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Pan: Aakfg0840N Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 14/08/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable