“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

Richa India Infra Development Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 8(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1622/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Kale, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 43C

assessee calling for further details. Since the assessee did not respond, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 4. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. There is a delay ... material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC) we condone

Bharat Bijlee Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 6(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1531/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kuamr Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

section 263 stating that the AO has not carried out proper enquiry with regard to the above mentioned issues. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the PCIT. Bharat Bijlee Ltd. 4. The assessee raised an additional ground contending the invocation of revision under section

Pritam Kumar, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 19(1), Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1131/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 151ASection 69

NFAC who vide order dated 19-12-2024 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. AR for the assessee has raised the legal issue and stated that the notice dated 23-07-2022 issued

Samsung Sdi India Pvt Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-5(2)(1), Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5475/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92C

after the directions given by the Ld. DRP amounting to INR 1,39,02,379/-. 6. Against this order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP/AO/TPO

Navnitbhai Jerambhai Desai, Surat vs. ITO, Ward- 3(2)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 136/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.136/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Navnitbhai Jerambhai Desai Income Tax Officer 44, Vaikunthdham Society, Vs. Ward No.3(2)(1), Surat, Laxmikant Aashram Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Katargam, Surat-395 004 Gate, Surat-395 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afzpp 3076 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (प्र"थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 02/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act’) Dated 13.12.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, ‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S 144 Of The Act Dated 26.11.2019. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs.13,68,000/- On Account Of Unexplained Income U/S 69A R.W.S. 115Bbe.

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

rightly made addition u/s 69A of the Act. 4. Further aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the assessee filed paper books containing various details submitted to the lower authorities including reply

Dipen Jaydeepbhai Dhimar, Tapi vs. ITO, Ward-1, Bardoli

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

ITA 131/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.131/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Dipen Jaydeepbhai Dhimar, Vs. Ito, 1, Bajar Faliya, Valod, At & Po – Ward – 1, Talod, Tal – Tapi, Tapi – 394640, Bardoli Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Amzpd6196K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/07/2025

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 274Section 68

upheld the addition made by AO and dismissed the appeal. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee filed a paper book and submitted that details and documents were filed before AO. He further

Dharmesh Damjibhai Patoliya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward2(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 487/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.487/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Dharmesh Damjibhai Patoliya Vs. Ito, 101 Gandamaya Apartment Ward – 2(2)(1), Matrukrupa Society, Kamrej Surat Charrasta Opp. Azim Hospital, Tal: Kamrej, Surat-395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahzpp1276F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/07/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 250Section 253(3)Section 40

appellant and dismissed the appeal of the appellant. 8. Further aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) passed the order

Harshvadan Natvarlal Chavda, Bharuch vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 794/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra C. Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr DR

Section 10Section 10ASection 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. On going through the record, we find that an adjustment of Rs.13,73,100/- has been made by the CPC, Bangalore u/s.143

Deepakkumar Radheshyam Shrivastav, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 629/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kambledeepakkumar Radheshyam Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Shrivastav, Ward-3(2)(1), 1, Radhegranth, Near Jeeviba Ahmedabad. Complex, Cadila Crossing Road, Ghodasar, Ahmedabad-380050. [Pan :Bbdps 7889 G] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Pritesh Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee could not furnish the required details before the Assessing Officer

Atharva Foundries Private Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Comissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 113/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri R.C. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37

applicable in this case. In view of the above, the Ground No. 1 is DISMISSED.” 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had overdrawn cash credit facility for which the bank

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna vs. Ashish Omprakash Mantri, Jalna

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 148/PUN/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

adjudicate the grounds challenging the addition on merit. 12. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Whether based on facts and circumstances of the case and on law, the CIT(A), was right

Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Jalna vs. Pramila Omprakash Mantri, Jalna

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 146/PUN/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna vs. Pramila Omprakash Mantri, Jalna

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 145/PUN/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna vs. Atul Omprakash Mantri, Jalna

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 143/PUN/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna vs. Atul Omprakash Mantri, Jalna

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 142/PUN/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna vs. Omprakash Asaram Mantri, Jalna

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 141/PUN/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna vs. Omprakash Asaram Mantri, Jalna

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 140/PUN/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Dr. Grahams Homes, Kalimpong vs. ACIT (Exempt), Circle 31, Kolkata

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

ITA 669/KOL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by upholding that the valid audit report in form no. 10B must be filed one month prior to the due date, failure to furnish such report in prescribed form result in disentitlement of the trust from claiming exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act.

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata vide an order dated on 25.08.2023. 2. That the time for filing of the appeal before the Tribunal expired on 23.10.2023. 3. That the Trust engaged the services of Mr Arindam Pal, an accountant, for the purpose of handling accounts and income tax matters

Kajla Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Ltd, Purba Medinipur vs. DCIT, Circle 27(1), Haldia

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

ITA 311/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 80P

dated 19.09.2022. I.T.A. No.: 311/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Kajla Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Ltd. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1) For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC was grossly erred ... filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal. I.T.A. No.: 311/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Kajla Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Ltd. 4. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have

M/S. Safal Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2491/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

admit the appeal for adjudication. I.T.A. No.: 2491/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s. Safal Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is bad in law as well ... pursuing the same and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Rival contentions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. 5. It was submitted before