“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

Y.Anthonysamy, Panruti vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Cuddalore

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

ITA 1579/CHNY/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1579/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Y. Anthonisamy, The Income Tax Officer, 41-Andavar Nagar, Vs. Ward 4, 1St Street, Panikankuppan, Cuddalore. Panruti – 607 106. Pan: Aokpa 3874N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Hitesh, Advocate For Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh, Advocate for Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 144Section 250

before the Tribunal on 30.05.2025 with delay. On perusal of the same, we find there is sufficient cause for delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. We also find that the assessee has got a prima facie case on merits. Hence, we condone the delay in filing the appeal

Thiru Arutprakasa Vallalar Deiva Nilayam, Cuddalorre vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Cuddalore

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

ITA 1578/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1578/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh, Advocate for Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 147Section 250

deliberate and neither willful nor wanton.” 3. On perusal of the same, we find there is sufficient cause for delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. :- 3 -: 4. At the very

M/S. Laxmi Organic Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4782/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate andFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR

Section 144C(5)Section 80I

adjustments, as already listed above were also made to arrive at total assessed income at Rs.93,72,50,260/-. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. DRP. 7. Ground No.1 and 2 are general in nature and will be dealt along with other grounds

Esscon Integrated Security Solutions Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-8(1), Delhi

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

ITA 162/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Him :-

Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 272

NFAC who vide order dated 11-11-2024 dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay. Being aggrieved the order the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 5. We have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and perused the relevant materials available on record. None is present for assessee. Perusal

Amit Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 35(1), Delhi

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

ITA 5480/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: the Ld. NFAC who vide order dated 23-08-2024 dismissed the appeal against which the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal.

Section 270Section 69C

preferred the appeal before the Ld. NFAC who vide order dated 23-08-2024 dismissed the appeal against which the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 8. We have herd the Ld. CIT DR and perused the material available on record. None is present for assessee. Perusal

Amit Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 36(1), Delhi

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

ITA 5479/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: the Ld. NFAC who vide order dated 23-08-2024 dismissed the appeal being treated time barred. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC the assessee filed this appeal before the tribunal.

Section 144BSection 69C

dated 23-08-2024 dismissed the appeal being treated time barred. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC the assessee filed this appeal before the tribunal. 4. We have heard the ld. CIT DR and perused the material available on record. None is present for assessee. Perusal

Arunima Adcon Sevices (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward -3(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 5444/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 234ASection 56Section 68Section 73A

dismissed the appeal ex parte on 18-09-2017. Aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal who vide order dated 20-12-2019 restored the issues back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). In the compliance of the order

Braham, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 4009/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: BEFORESHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 69

records relating to the dispute. The company engaged the M/s Samrendra K. Pandey & Co. Chartered Accountant for conducting the proceedings who filed this appeal before the tribunal of delay of 1114 days. In the application the assessee relied the decision of the Apex court in the Collector Land Acquisition ... bank account amounting to Rs.10,40,000/- remain unexplained. 8. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. NFAC, assessee preferred the appeal before the tribunal. 9. We have heard the ld. DR and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee did not appear before

Income Tax Officer Ward-28(5), Delhi vs. Rajender, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3477/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Income Tax Officer, Shri Rajender, Ward 28(5), Room No. 1202, 448, Chauhan Mohalla, Block E, Civic Centre, Vs Madanpura Khadar, Sarita Delhi 110002 Vihar, Delhi - 110076 Pan- Avqpr9368B Revenue Assessee Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Om Prakash Tiwari, Ca Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am, This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A), In Short], Dated 30.04.2024 In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10229136 For Assessment Year 2018-19, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dt. 20.03.2023 Passed U/S 147/144 Of The Act.

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69

addition towards the interest income on FDR. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of the ld. CIT(A), the revenue filed present appeal before the Tribunal wherein following grounds of appeal are taken by the revenue: 1. “That on facts and circumstances of the case

Bigstar Hotels Resorts Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 5(1), New Delhi

ITA 3351/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 250

confirmed the additions made. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal where the following grounds of appeal are taken:- 1. “Under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income

Sanjay Jain, Bhilwara, Rajasthan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1384/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153DSection 250

vide impugned order dt. 31.01.2024 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee filed the present appeal before the tribunal wherein the following grounds of appeal are taken by the assessee:- 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law while

Convergys India Services Private Limited, Gurgoan vs. DCIT Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as discussed above

ITA 1412/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Convergys India Services Private Vs Dcit, Limited, Industrial Plot N-243, Circle-4(2), Tower-A, 1St, 3Rd, 4Th, 5Th & New Delhi. Tower-B, Ground, 2Nd 5Th Floor, S.P. Infocity, Udyog Vihar, Dundahera, Gurgaon, Haryana, 122016 Pan-Aabcc5056G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri K.M.Gupta & Ms. Shruti Kimta, Ar Respondent By Shri S.K.Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2025 Order

Section 115Section 115OSection 250Section 9

vide impugned order dated 07.03.2023 partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal wherein following grounds of appeal are taken:- 1 “That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

M/S Anil Kumar Sunil Kumar, Allahabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incometax Central Circle, Allahabad.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 25/ALLD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad24 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 144

assessee. In view of the foregoing submissions, learned A.R. for the assessee submitted that the issues in dispute in the present appeal before the Tribunal, should be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer to pass de novo order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity

Bhavesh Ishwarlal Panchasara, Rajkot vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot

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

ITA 95/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.95/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2015-16) Bhavesh Ishwarlal बनाम Assistant Commissioner Of Panchasara Income-Tax, Circle-3(1), Rajkot /Vs. 1, Mehulnagar Main Road, Near Khodiyar Temple, Rajkot-360 002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aodpp 1375 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nimish Vayawala, Ld.A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

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 received the order of Ld. CIT(A) on 03.11.2023 and stipulated period

Mani Bhushan Kumar, Patna vs. CIT, Patna

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

ITA 642/PAT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 250

instant appeal within 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 the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal and upholding the order passed

Dinesh Baranwal, East Champaran vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Motihari

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

ITA 593/PAT/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Patna24 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.593/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sri Dinesh Baranwal……………….....…..…………………....Appellant C/ M/S Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, C. R Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Kol-72. [Pan: Adkpg6603N] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Motihari…...……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 24 , 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.05.2024 Passed By The Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 57 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. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Dealer Of A Telecom Service Operator, Namely M/S Unitech Wireless Tamil Nadu Pvt.

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 57 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 ... appeal was dismissed ex parte due to non-compliance. 4. Aggrieved by the above order assessee is in appeal before this tribunal, at the time of hearing before us, the learned AR submitted that the quantum order passed under Section 147 r.W.s. 144 dated 09.12.2019 had itself been set aside

Bihar State Road Development Corpn.Ltd., Patna vs. CIT (Appeal), Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 335/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 80I

were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 330/PAT/2024; AY 2012-13: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without ... paper book along with the necessary annexures and the additional ground raised were not part of the original grounds of appeal before the Tribunal nor these documents were filed before the Ld. CIT(A). Since they have been filed for the first time and were not considered

Bihar State Road Development Corporation Limited, Patna vs. ACIT, Cor-2, Patna

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 334/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 80I

Bihar State Road Development Corporation Ltd, Patna vs. ACIT, Cir-2, P)Atna

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 333/PAT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 80I

Bihar State Road Development Corpn. Ltd., Patna vs. ACIT, Circle 2, Patna

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 332/PAT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 80I