← 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

Rakesh Law Founfation, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 1490/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1490/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: -

For Appellant: Mr.Shrenik Chordia, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs.C.Yamuna, CIT
Section 80G

time to time. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 631 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assessee had given its email id dsdinesh2619@gmail.com for communication however the departmental communications were

Channagiri Arecanut Growers and Marketing Sowarda Co-Operative Association, Davangere vs. ITO, Ward-1, Davanagere

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

ITA 262/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri M Monish Sowkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Page 2 of 4 2. At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 135 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition explaining the reasons for the delay. It was submitted that the office assistant of the tax consultant

Rama Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 43(8), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3723/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Aashish Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide his impugned order dated 07.04.2025 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR has submitted that the amount deposited in bank were the sale proceeds of the goods

Jubilant Foodworks Limited, Noida vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida

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

ITA 184/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2022-23 Jubilant Food Works Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Limited Plot No. 1A Sector Income Tax, Circle – 5 (1) 16 A Gautam Buddha Nagar (1), Noida Uttar Pradesh 201301 Pan No. Aabcd 1821 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. K M Gupta, Advocate Ms. Shruti Khimata, Ca Respondent By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit Dr

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80ASection 80J

vide order dated 18-11-2024 partly allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved the order from the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 4. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that assessee had claimed the deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act which was duly reported

Amar Pal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-1(5), Meerut, Baraut

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

ITA 5853/DEL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Amar Pal Vs. Ito C/O Kapil Goel Advocate- Ward-1 (5) 26/124, Sector-7, Rohini Meerut Baraut Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

preferred an appeal before the Ld. NFAC who vide order dated 25-10-2014 dismissed the appeal against which the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the notice dated 21-02-2018 issued u/s 142 of the Act is invalid

Travel Food Services Delhi Terminal 3 Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 25(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1453/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Travel Food Services Delhi Vs Acit, Terminal 3 Pvt.Ltd., New Udaan Circle-25(2), Bhavan, Opp. Terminal 3, New Delhi Igi Airport, Gurgaon Road, South West Delhi-110037. Pan-Aadct3703B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Surdershan Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

vide impugned order dated 29.01.2024 has confirmed the disallowance and dismissed the appeal of the assessee therefore, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “The order passed by the Learned Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 6 is erroneous, contrary

Gurukrupa Krafts Private Limited, Gujrat vs. ACIT, CC-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 545/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 153DSection 154Section 250Section 68

submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. ITA Nos.542 to 545 & 1727/Del/2022 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal wherein the following grounds of appeal are taken: 1. “The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in facts and law in confirming the additions

Gurukrupa Krafts Private Limited, Gujrat vs. ACIT, CC-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 544/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 153DSection 154Section 250Section 68

submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. ITA Nos.542 to 545 & 1727/Del/2022 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal wherein the following grounds of appeal are taken: 1. “The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in facts and law in confirming the additions

Gurukrupa Krafts Private Limited, Gujrat vs. ACIT, CC-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 543/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 153DSection 154Section 250Section 68

submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. ITA Nos.542 to 545 & 1727/Del/2022 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal wherein the following grounds of appeal are taken: 1. “The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in facts and law in confirming the additions

Gurukrupa Krafts Private Limited, Gujrat vs. ACIT, CC-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 542/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 153DSection 154Section 250Section 68

submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. ITA Nos.542 to 545 & 1727/Del/2022 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal wherein the following grounds of appeal are taken: 1. “The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in facts and law in confirming the additions

Gurukrupa Krafts Private Limited, Gujarat vs. ACIT, Central Circle-17, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1727/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 153DSection 154Section 250Section 68

submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. ITA Nos.542 to 545 & 1727/Del/2022 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal wherein the following grounds of appeal are taken: 1. “The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in facts and law in confirming the additions

The Shree Daivadnya Urban Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Mapusa vs. Income Tax Officer, Panaji

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 85/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2017-18 The Shree Daivadnya Urban Co-Op. Credit Society, Ltd. Office No. 211, 2Nd Flr., Cosmos Centre, Mapusa, Goa-403507 Pan:Aabat3738J . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: None [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 24Section 25Section 250Section 69A

countenanced the additions made by Ld. AO, thereby dismissed the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution. Further aggrieved, the assessee came in present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The case was called twice; none appeared at the behest of the appellant assessee, the letter of adjournment in view

Jaipal Ruprela, Raipur vs. ITO-3(1), Raipur

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

ITA 438/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Raipur05 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.438/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Jaipal Ruprela H No.266, Near Popular Cake Factory, Katora Talab, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Bwkpr7514K

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

communicated or informed regarding passing of the appellate order of the assessee which resulted in delay of 197 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. The same has been reiterated as per oral submission by the Ld. Counsel. 3. On the other hand, the revenue principally accepted the submissions made

Shri Gunjan Kumar Bihani, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 (4), Raipur

In the result, the captioned appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 122/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.122/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Gunjan Kumar Bihani Ashoka Ratan, Khamhardih, Shankar Nagar, Raipur-492 009 (C.G) Pan: Ajupb5787C

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 124(3)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

been done by the department electronically, it was not checked within time by the assessee which resulted in delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. On going through the entire petition, we are of the view that the said delay cannot be attributed to any malafide or intentional ... been done by the department electronically, it was not checked within time by the assessee which resulted in delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. On going through the entire petition, we are of the view that the said delay cannot be attributed to any malafide or intentional

Bhaveshbhai Haribhai Kanani, Jamnagar vs. ITO WD-1(3) Jamnagar, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 254/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.254/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19 Bhaveshbhai Haribhai Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ Kanani, Ward-1(3), Jamnagar, Taranjali Vs Buildng, Income Tax Officer, Nr. Plot No.E211, Gidc Phase- 2 Dared, Jamnagar-361008 Amber Cinema, Pt. Nehru Marg, Hospital Rod, Jamanagar-361 008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acypk 5085 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 15/05/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 18.11.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Levied U/S 271B Of The Act, Dated 23.11.2021. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law As Well On Fact In Upholding Penalty Of Rs.1,50,000 Imposed By Ld.Ao U/S 271B Of The Act.”

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

avoid penal provision u/s 271B of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, vehemently argued that the assessee did not maintain the books of accounts and in fact, the assessee

Bhartiben Gautamkumar Barai, Dwarka vs. ITO WD-1, Dwarka, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 242/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.242/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Bhartiben Gautamkumar Vs Ito, Wd – 1, Barai, Dwarka – 361335 . Nr. Brahm Kund, Dwarka - 361335 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amnpb9005B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

violation of provisions u/s 40A(3) of I.T. Act. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 7. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee, argued that assessee made the payment to the petrol pump, in cash and the payment

Anila Narendra Sangani, Jamnagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3) Jamnagar, Jamnagar

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 232/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.232/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14 Anila Narendra Sangani, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), बनाम/ Plot No. E-69/70 Shreenathji Jamnagar, Taranjali Building, Enterprise, Gidc Phase-2 Vs Income Tax Office, Nr. Amber Dared, Jamnagar-361006 Cinema, Pt. Nehru Marg, Hospital Rod, Jamanagar-361 008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bdups 0674 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

appellant failed to adduce any valid reason for such failure. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset stated that assessee’s case under consideration, the penalty imposed by Assessing Officer

Prakashbhai Dhirubhai Thakkar, Rajkot vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), Rajkot

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 222/RJT/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.222/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Ms. Devina Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

these findings the addition was sustained by ld.CIT(A). 9. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents

Manoj Kumar, Aurangabad vs. ITO Ward-3(3), Aurangabad, Gaya

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

ITA 75/PAT/2025[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Patna05 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.75/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Manoj Kumar……………………….....…..…………………....Appellant Chawal Bazar, Main Road, Daudnagar, Aurangabad, Bihar-824143. [Pan: Andpk2914K] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(3), Aurangabad……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 24, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 5, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre ["Cit(A)"] For The Assessment Year 2021-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 145 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Explaining The Reasons Or Such Delay. After Considering The Submissions & Materials On Record, We Are Satisfied That There Was Reasonable Cause For The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Said Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication. 3. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2021–22 Declaring Total Income Of ₹ 5,54,350. The Return Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices Under Section 143(2) & Section 142(1) Of The

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 69A

Assessment Year 2021-21. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 145 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition explaining the reasons or such delay. After considering the submissions and materials on record ... found no justification and deleted the addition entirely. 5. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal contesting the sustained addition of ₹33,02,664 under Section 69A. It was submitted that the entire cash deposit, including the amount sustained, was properly

Ms. Geeta Bhatia, Khanna vs. Inome Tax Officer, Ward-5, Khanna

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 895/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 895/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ms. Geeta Bhatia, The Ito, House No. 25, Narottam Nagar, Vs Ward-5, Near Railway Crossing, Khanna. Khanna. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ajopb6752B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sayyam Garg & Ms. Anmol Gupta, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl.Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sayyam Garg & Ms. Anmol Gupta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJ PAL 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 02.08.2024 passed for assessment year