“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

Khajamoinuddin Mahammad, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Warangal

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

ITA 571/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69Section 69A

received, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte. 6. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. At the outset, the Ld. AR raised a legal ground challenging the validity of notice issued under section 148 of the Act, contending

Limagrain India Private Limited, Secunderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 546/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Sancheti, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271GSection 92D

final adjustment made by the Ld. AO. 6. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Learned Authorised Representative ITA No.546/Hyd/2025 4 (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the only ground of appeal of the assessee is against the levy of penalty under

R R Edifice Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle - 1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 439/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.416/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit Vs. Rr Edifice Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aasfr2521L]

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Ms.U Mini Chandran,CIT-DR

Section 194CSection 250Section 37(1)

Edifice Pvt.Ltd. RR Edifice Pvt.Ltd. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee, Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, CA submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to sustain

ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. R R Edifice Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 416/HYD/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2025

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Ms.U Mini Chandran,CIT-DR

Section 194CSection 250Section 37(1)

Tollygunge Estates (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 941/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 282

dated 20.03.2020. I.T.A. No.: 941/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tollygunge Estates (P) Ltd. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing ... Addl/JCIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR submitted before us that the assessee

Pallishri Samabaya Krishi Unanyan Samity Limited, Coochbehar vs. I.T.O., Ward 2.1, Coochbehar

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

ITA 476/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 250Section 69A

instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that on the facts and circumstances & legal position of the case, the order ... order of the Ld. AO and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR submitted that the deposits in the bank account

Pramod Lakra Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -11(1), Kolkata vs. Rudramukhi Vintrade Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 136/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 250

confirmed. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the revenue has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made and the paper book filed have been examined. It was submitted before us by the Ld. AR that in this case

Aa 291 Thalavady Primary Agricultural Coop Credit Society Limited, Erode vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1) Erode, Erode

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1495/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1495/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms.A.Vijayalakshmi, C.A(Tirupur)For Respondent: Mrs.C.Yamuna, CIT

Section 69ASection 80P

time to time. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 113 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is a cooperative society which had given the email

S 51 Selavadai Paccs Ltd., Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(8), Salem

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1442/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1442/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr.T.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 69A

time to time. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 415 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is a cooperative society which had undergone frequent changes in the post

Dharmaraj Rajam, Trichy vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Trichy

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1434/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1434/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr.G.Akash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 69A

time to time. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 414 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse was terminally ill as a result of which he omitted to comply with

Vijaya Pathina Sowthardha Sahakari Niyamitha, Income Tax Layout vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 3(2)(2)., Kormangala

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

ITA 1977/BANG/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Vijaya Pathina Sowthardha Sahakari Income Tax Officer – Ward – 3(2)(2) Vs. Niyamitha Bmtc Building, Near Khb Games Village No.5, 4Th Floor, Chandra Layout Koramangala, Bangalore – 560095 Main Road, Income Tax Layout Bengaluru – 560040 Pan : Aabav5040R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Mohammad Taher Shaikh, Fca : Sri Shivanand H. Kalakeri – Cit Respondent By : 24.07.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 08.08.2025

For Appellant: Sri Mohammad Taher Shaikh, FCAFor Respondent: 24.07.2025

Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(19)Section 234ASection 234BSection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

basis of the documents available before him dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved from the above order the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted that the assessee did not receive any notice from the Ld.CIT(A) it might

Royal Remedies Pharma Healthcare, Delhi vs. Addl. CIT (A), Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3653/DEL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2017-18 Royal Remedies Pharma Healthcare Vs. Addl. Cit(A), 2707/B, Floor 1, Sabzi Mandi, Ward 34(5), Civic Centre, Main Bazar, Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Aapfr6429R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 04.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.08.2025 Order This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.01.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A), Agra For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 On The Following Ground:- 1(A) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.5,04,500/- Made By The Ao U/S 68 Of The I.T. Act In Respect Of Cash Deposited In Bank Account In Old Specified Bank Notes During The Period Of Demonetization Period Between 9/11/2016 To 20/11/2016. B) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That Details Of Persons/Debtors From Whom Realization Of Sale Proceeds Had Been Received In Cash, Had Not Been Produced Before The Aô Whereas

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

Section 115Section 44ASection 68Section 69

sufficient to prove the genuineness of the transaction. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite issue of notice of hearing, hence, I am proceeding exparte qua the assessee, after

V V Transport, Rohtak vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 989/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] V.V. Transport, Vs Acit, 96-A, Sindhu Bhawan, Rohtak Subhash Nagar, Rohtak, Haryana-124001. Pan-Aadfv5250G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Sakshi Pandey, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08.08.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.01.20248 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)/Addl/Jcit(A)-7, Kolkata [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.Cit(A), Rohtak/10584/2019-20 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 20.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm, Engaged In The Business Of Running Of Petrol Pump. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Appeal Was Filed On 28.10.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 4,29,25,730/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny For The Reasons Of Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period & Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 24.09.2018. After Considering The Submissions & The Books Of Accounts Submitted, The Ao Had Taken No Adverse Inference On The Issue Of Cash Deposited During Demonetization Period However, He Has Made Disallowance Of Inr 12,20,700/- By Holding That The Assessee Has Made Interest Free Advances To Staff & To One Of The Partners Whereas It Is Paying Interest On The Borrowings. In First Appeal, Ld.Cit(A) Has Deleted The Disallowance Made Out Of The Interest Payments Towards The Staff Advances Given However, Confirmed The Disallowance On Account Of Advances Given To The Partner Of Inr 1 Crore.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 36

disallowance on account of advances given to the partner of INR 1 crore. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer and Hon'ble CIT (Appeal) is against facts

ACIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi, ITO C.R Building vs. Insultech International Pvt. Ltd., Vasant Vihar

In the result, the appeal is Allowed

ITA 2015/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 37

preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who allowed the appeal, thus, aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case

Smt Iqbal Kaur, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Hoshiarpur

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

ITA 699/ASR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

made by the assessee through online portal, but thereafter, there has not been any compliance or response. 8. Now, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal. The ld. AR of the assessee filed a small paper book containing copies

Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Office vs. Vikas Mehra, the Mall

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed being devoid of

ITA 287/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Jatinder Nagpal, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 49

therefore delete the same. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.” 8. Now, the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal. 9. In course of hearing, the ld. DR has filed a written submission which

ACIT Central, Circle-1, Raipur vs. Abu Bakar Dhada, Basna Mahasamund

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 37/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.35/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Abu Bakar Dhada Proprietor Of Hasam Usman Basna, Main Road, Basna, Mahasamund-493 554 (C.G.) Pan: Aaqph7130J ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee to be aggrieved before this bench of the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel answered that just for abundant precaution, he had filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Having heard the submissions of the Ld. Counsel, we are of the considered view that once already relief has been provided

Abu Bakar Dhada, Mahasamund vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 35/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Kamlesh Kumar, Patna vs. ITO Ward- 6 (4), Patna

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

ITA 147/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraι.Τ.Α. No.: 147/Pat/2025

Section 144Section 250

dated 26.02.2019. Page 2 Ι.Τ.Α. No.: 147/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the order of the A.O. passed in the above case without giving proper opportunity of being heard

The Pavaratty Service Co Operative Bank Ltd No 3918, Pavaratty vs. Income Tax Officer, Guruvayur, Thrissur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 480/COCH/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ramdas M, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 6. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 28 days in filing the appeal