“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

Joydeep Das, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (8), Pune

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

ITA 2336/PUN/2024[18-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Joydeep Das Dcit, Circle 8, Pune Flat No.L/505, Sapphire Park Chs Vs. Ltd., Park Street, Wakad, Pune – 411057 Pan: Alxpd5599D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak & Ms Arrchena Shetty Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 29-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-07-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. Pathak and Ms Arrchena ShettyFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 17

result, the appeal is dismissed.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the decision of AO treating the amounts of Rs.30

DR Y vs. Murty Charitable Trust, Hyderabadvs.ITO Exemptions, Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 787/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram and Shri PFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar Naik

Section 80GSection 80G(5)

incorrect section code while filing Form No. 10A. 4. Aggrieved by the rejection order of Ld. CIT(E) , the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee had been granted valid registration under section 80G of the Act since

Sisters of Our Lady of Fatima Pargi, Vikarabad vs. CIT(Exemptions), Hyderabad

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

ITA 712/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar Naik

Section 12A

No.712/Hyd/2025 2 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 364 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit, explaining the reasons for the said delay. The learned Authorised Representative ... compliance with notices issued during the proceedings. 7. Aggrieved by the rejection order of Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that all notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E), including the final rejection order, were sent to the email ID camadhinenirayanna@gmail.com

Param Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. CIT(Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 648/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar Naik

Section 12A

No.648/Hyd/2025 2 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 255 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit, explaining the reasons for the said delay. The learned Authorised Representative ... compliance with notices issued during the proceedings. 7. Aggrieved by the rejection order of Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that all notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E), including the final rejection order, were sent to the email ID phcmanikonda@yahoo.in

Primary Agricultural Co Operative Society Limited Chennaraopet, Warangal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Warangal

ITA 3/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249Section 249(3)Section 250Section 5Section 80P

appeal, submitted that the same involves a delay of 32 days. Elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal, the Ld. AR submitted that the same had crept in for the reason that, as 5 Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited during

Tirumala Estates, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

ITA 143/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Us:

Section 143(1)Section 194I

assessee firm continued with its claim that the maintenance charges were taxable in its hands under the head “Business Income.” 8. On appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee, by way of an additional ground of appeal, claimed that in case it was to be held that the maintenance receipts were

Carryco, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 40, Kolkata

ITA 1043/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

Spice Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT (OSD), Ward-1(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2428/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2428/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Spice Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd.……...……..…………………....Appellant Dc-9/28, Shastri Bagan, Deshbandhu Nagar, W.B. – 700059. [Pan: Aapcs1202G] Vs. Acit (Osd), Ward-1(3), Kolkata.………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Acit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 24, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.01.2023 Passed By The Nfac [In Short Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 616 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.

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 616 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 ... order of the Assessing Officer by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 5. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the assessee did not turn up before this Bench. Although, Registry has issued notice to the assessee

Rinku Rani Panja, Paschim Midnapore vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(3), Midnapore, Paschim Medinipur

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

ITA 1471/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1471/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Rinku Rani Panja,………..………………..………Appellant D-28, Burdge Town, Kotwali, Midnapore-721101, West Bengal [Pan:Anipp7116R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-1(3), Midnapore, Office Of The Addl./Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Amaravati Building, 1St Floor, Keranitola, Midnaporle-721101, West Bengal Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 24, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 30, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 94 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee

Thottiapatti Muthusamy Mohan, Namakkal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Circle-1, Namakkal

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

ITA 1327/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1327/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Thottiapatti Muthusamy Mohan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 629, Salem Road, Circle 1, Namakkal 637 001. Namakkal. [Pan:Aldpm2174M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A. ""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 : 30.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-13, Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Raised 6 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 By Passing Exparte Order In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194CSection 253(6)

Court had held that when an appeal was rejected by the CIT(Appeals) on the ground of limitation, the fee payable for further appeal before this Tribunal, was only 500/- under clause (d) of Section 253(6) of the Act. In our opinion, there is not much difference between ... filing the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The ld. AR Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A. drew our attention to para 5.1 of the impugned order and submits that the assessee

Krishnavel Umamaheswari, Madurai vs. ACIT, Ncc-1, Madurai

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

ITA 1299/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1299/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Krishnavel Umamaheswari, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 10E, Nallamadan Koil Lane, Income Tax, North Masi Street, Madurai 625 001. Non Corporate Circle 1, Madurai. [Pan:Aaopu8528K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""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 : 30.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Raised 2 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 194DSection 194H

filed a written submissions in support of the grounds raised by the 3 I.T.A. No.1299/Chny/25 assessee. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, non appeared on behalf of the assessee nor filed any adjournment petition. On perusal