“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

Exel Rubber Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1894/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1894/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Exel Rubber (P) Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aaace4495J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11 Hyderabad, Dated 11/10/2025 For The A.Y 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 69A

partly allowed appeal filed by the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT (A), the appellant company has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. In ground Nos.2 to 7, the assessee has challenged 7. the validity of initiation of re-assessment proceedings by issuing notice

Ace Tyres Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1893/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1893/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S. Ace Tyres (P) Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Central Circle (1)2 Pan:Aadca2210N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, Dated 16/10/2025 For The A.Y 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 153

merits and partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Learned CIT(Appeals) the appellant in in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned Counsel for the assessee, Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A, referring to the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee and more

Vilas Polymer Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 1885/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1885/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S. Vilas Polymer (P) Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aaacv9854A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, Dated 31/10/2025 For The A.Y 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 153

transactions entered into FOCUS 5.5 Software. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The learned Counsel for the assessee, Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A, referring to the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee and more particularly, ground no.2

Vilas Polymer Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1884/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1876 & 1884/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) M/S. Vilas Polymer (P) Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aaacv9854A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, Both Dated 31/10/2025, For The Asst. Years 2020-21 & 2021-22 Respectively. Since Identical Issues Are Involved In These Two Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Vilas Polymer P Ltd 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The learned Counsel for the assessee, Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A referring to ground No.3 of the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) is not justified

Vilas Polymer Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1876/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Vilas Polymer Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the six appeals i

ITA 1874/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1870 To 1875/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2014-2015 To 2019-2020 Vilas Polymer Private The Dcit, Limited, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(2), Vs. Pin – 500 090 Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Aaacv9854A Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca M V Prasad राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit- Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18.02.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA M V PrasadFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

legal grounds and adjudicated the factual grounds. 5. Aggrieved by the order of learned CIT(A), the assessee has now, filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 are general in nature and no arguments were advanced by the learned Counsel for the assessee in support

Vilas Polymer Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the six appeals i

ITA 1872/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

For Appellant: CA M V PrasadFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

Vilas Polymer Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the six appeals i

ITA 1870/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

For Appellant: CA M V PrasadFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

Exel Rubber Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1571/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha G.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148

dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned Counsel for the assessee, Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A referring to ground No.3 of the assessee submitted that

Exel Rubber Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1566/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha G.आ. अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1566 & 1571/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) M/S. Exel Rubber Private Ltd Vs. Hyderabad Dy.Cit Central Circle 1 (2) Hyderabad Pan:Aaace4495J (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राजस्व द्वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 18/02/2026 Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. आदेश/Order These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, Both Dated 14/07/2025 For The A.Ys 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Involved In These Two Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148

Nmdc Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle 5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1523/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1523/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2024-2025 Nmdc Limited, The Dcit, Hyderabad – 500028. Vs. Circle-5(1), Pan Aaacn7325A Hyderabad. Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Darshan Jakharia राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18.02.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA Darshan JakhariaFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)(a)Section 43B

disallowance of Rs.85,72,18,054/-. 4. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before the Tribunal, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the adjustment was made by the CPC on account

Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Kolkata vs. Delighted Holdings Private Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 882/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 Ito, Ward-8(2), Kolkata…....……..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Delighted Holdings Pvt. Ltd.…………………………..….....……...…..…..Respondent 12A, Lord Sinha Road, 1St Floor, R No102, Annapurna Apartment, Kol-71. [Pan: Aabce0588P] Appearances By: Shri Sandip Sarkar, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 28, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 18, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.05.2023 Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011–12. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 29 Days & The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Going Over The Said Petition, We Find Sufficient Reasons For The Delay & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 147Section 250

present appeal has been filed against the same order for the same assessment year by the revenue), the assessee has preferred appeal before the Tribunal on the legal ground of reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act which has been decided by the Tribunal vide order dated

Ravi Balaraman(Represented by Legal Heir- Mr. R.S. Logeshwara, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corp Ward-22(4), Chennai

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

ITA 4152/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 4152/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Late Ravi Balaraman, The Income Tax Officer, (Rep. By Legal Heir Shri R.S. Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 22(4), Logeshwara), Tambaram, Chennai No.1/79, Pillayar Koil Street, Medavakkam, Chennai – 600 100. Pan: Avnpr 1591D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT

Section 147Section 250Section 270ASection 69A

hearing notices issued from the office of the FAA. 4. Aggrieved by the order of FAA, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR submitted that assessee had responded to the hearing notices issued from the office of the FAA. Copy of responses filed by the assessee

Bharat Kumar Choudhary, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer 41 (3) (2), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai

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

ITA 8785/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Bijayananda Prusethbharat Kumar Choudhary, Vs. Assessing Officer 41 (3) (2), Avenue 3, Shop No-12, Jai Santoshi Mata Near Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bkc. Gilban Nagar. Gulmohar Road No-5. Area, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Vileparle West. Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400049. Pan/Gir No: Cfwpk1543K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 69ASection 69a

given satisfactory explanation about the cash deposit during the demonetization period. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that there is violation of natural justice because notices were sent to Rajasthan whereas the appellant’s business

Salahuddin Abdul Rahim Khan, Mumbai vs. Ward 19(3)(1), Matru Mandir

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

ITA 7627/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarsalahuddin Abdul Rahim Vs. Ito – Ward 19(3)(1) Khan Room No. 202, 2Nd Floor B Block Flat No. 402 4Th F Matru Mandir, West Garden View, Mumbai - 400008 Mumbai - 400008 Pan/Gir No. Aadpk7525R (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 250(1)

which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression "sufficient cause" liberally we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore we condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 4. At the very outset, we noticed that

Kamleshkumar Dhansukhlal Patel, Valsad vs. ITO, Ward 2, Valsad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 890/SRT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

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

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69

could not be entertained without a revised return. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. AR, before us, submitted that the addition of Rs.66,52,171/- is a result of clerical/typographical error

Sunil Kumar Baheti, Surat vs. PCIT (Central), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 579/SRT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment after proper verification. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that, during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued a specific notice under section

Kavita Jain, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(3)(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 428/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

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

Section 132Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 250Section 274Section 69

Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the addition. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the Ld. AR contended that in view of CBDT Instruction No. 01/2022 dated 11.05.2022 issued pursuant to the judgment

Kadambala Harischandra Choudhury, Berhampur, Ganjam vs. ITO, Ward 1, Berhampur, Beherampur, Orissa

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

ITA 68/CTK/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiakadambala Harischandra Choudhury, I.T.O., Hatibandha, Street, Berhampur, Ward-1, Vs. Ganjam, Brahmapur-760001 (Odisha) Berhampur. Pan No. Agxpk 7229 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false. Ld. Sr. DR did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay ... days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. Kadambala Harischandra Choudhury Vs ITO 4. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) have dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte

Dilip Kumar Pramalik, Cda, Bidanasi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Aayakarkar Bhawan, Shelter Chhak

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

ITA 105/CTK/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiadilip Kumar Pramalik, D.C.I.T., Prop.-Ananda Jewellers, Head Office At Circle-1(1), Vs. Plot No. D/354, Sec.-06, Cda,. P.O. Cuttack. Bidanasi, Dist.- Cuttack-753014 (Odisha) Pan No. Adipp 9909 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false. Ld. Sr. DR did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay ... days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. Dilip Kr. Pramalik Vs DCIT 4. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. It was the prayer that