“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

Neomax Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Madurai vs. ITO, Corp. Ward-2, Madurai

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

ITA 1229/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1229/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Neomax Realtors Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 23/101, Plot No. 26, Block – B, Corporate Ward 2, Ground Floor Ramnagar 5Th Street, Madurai. S.S. Colony, Madurai 625 016. [Pan:Aaecn5770B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Raised 10 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer By Passing Exparte Order In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT

Section 144Section 250Section 263

assessee did not furnish any documentary evidences to substantiate the grounds raised in its appeal. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The ld. AR Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, CA submits that in pursuance to the revision order passed under section

Lakshmi Narasimhan Santhi, Chennai vs. The Assessment Unit, NFAC, New Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 3013/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Srikrishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Chandan, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

certain aspects before allowing such reliefs. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA dated 04.09.2024, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee, vide additional submissions dated 18.03.2025 and 24.04.2025 questioned the jurisdictional issues relying on the Hon’ble Apex Court's judgment in the case of Rajiv

Panjurajan Ganesan, Sivakasi vs. DCIT, CC - 2, Madurai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.278/Chny/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Panjurajan Ganesan Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.74A, Velayutham Road, Corporate Circle-2, Sivakasi, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-626 123. [Pan:Abypg3315R] (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. D. Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. G. Latchana, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2025

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. G. Latchana, Addl.CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Income (Appeals). 3. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the ld. Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, ld. Counsel argued that the ld. Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings vide show cause notice dated

Siba Foundation, Cuttack vs. ITO Exemption, Cuttack

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

ITA 273/CTK/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2025-26 Siba Foundation Vs. Ito, Exemption, Cuttack Somapur, P.S.- Kisan Nagar, Somapur, Cuttack- 754130 Pan/Gir No. Aawts 3027 R (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Natabar Panda, Adv Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kr Chakraborty, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 01 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad Dated 18/03/2025 In Appeal No. Cit(Exmption),Hyd/2024-25/12Aa/13676 Passed For Assessment Year 2025-26. 2. Facts In Brief Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Charitable Trust Created Under The Indian Trust 1882 On 13Th July, 2018. The Appellant Trust Is Running A Senior Secondary School From Class-1 To 12 Under The Name

For Appellant: Shri Natabar Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kr Chakraborty, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

objectives of the registration deed/MAO/AOA and accordingly, rejected the application for registration u/s.12AB of the Act. Hence, the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal. 3. At the time of hearing, ld AR of the assessee submitted that in response to notice for granting permanent registration, the appellant submitted

Radhakrishna Gou Seva Samiti, Balasore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 126/CTK/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: S/ S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Rl Reddy(Kz) & And Rajesh Kumar Assessment Year : 2025-26 Radhakrishna Gou Seva Samiti Radhakrishna Gou Seva Samiti Vs. Cit( Exemption), Hyderabad Cit( Exemption), Hyderabad Dwarka Prasad More Dwarka Prasad More At: Vivekananda Marg Vivekananda Marg P.O. Srikanthapur P.O. Srikanthapur Dist: Balasore, 756001 756001 Pan/Gir No. Aactr 5291 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K. Mishra, Adv Mishra, Adv Re Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kr Chakraborty, Ashim Kr Chakraborty, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/07/202 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/202 /2025 O R D E R Per Bench The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Com Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions),Hyderabad Hyderabad Dated 12/12/2024 In Appeal No.Cit(Exemption),Hyd/2024 ),Hyd/2024-25/12Aa/12296 Passed For Assessment Year Passed For Assessment Year 2025-26. 2. Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Filed E-Application In Form Application In Form No.10Ab Seeking Registration U/S.80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Ld No.10Ab Seeking Registration U/S.80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Ld No.10Ab Seeking Registration U/S.80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Ld Cit(E) Issued Notice To The Appellant Trust To Produce Memorandum Of Cit(E) Issued Notice To The Appellant Trust To Produce Memorandum Of Cit(E) Issued Notice To The Appellant Trust To Produce Memorandum Of P A G E 1 | 4 Assessment Year : 2025-26

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kr Chakraborty

Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

rejected the application for grant of registration u/s. 80G. 3. Aggrieved by the order of ld CIT(E), the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, ld AR of the assessee submitted that the ld CIT(E) has rejected the application citing that incomplete

Dr Wati Paramguru Memorial Educational Trust, Bhubaneswar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Hyderabad

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

ITA 545/CTK/2024[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumar Assessment Year :2025-26

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Chakraborty, CIT DR

Section 123ASection 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

Arya College, Ludhiana, Punjab vs. DCIT, Exemptions Circle 1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 1132/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri B.M. Monga & Shri Rohit Kaura, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

Bansal, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 05.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 01.07.2025 PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP PHYSICAL HEARING ORDER The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the 1d. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)'] dated 23.09.2024 passed for assessment year

Shamkant Vikram Thakare, Dhule vs. ITO Ward 1, Dhule

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

ITA 905/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Pune01 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 250Section 5

Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“CIT(A)”] relating to Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At the outset, we find that the appeal before the Tribunal is time barred by 213 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating as under : “1. The appellate order ... exparte order dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved with such order of the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that notices of hearing issued by the office of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC went

Shankarrao Mohite Patil Sahakari Bank Ltd, Solapur vs. ACIT Circle 1, Solapur

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

ITA 491/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Pune01 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12 Shankarrao Mohite Patil Sahakari Acit, Circle 1, Solapur Bank Ltd. Vs. Post Box No.9 At Post Akluj, Malshiras, Solapur – 413101 Pan: Aaaas1270P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pramod S Shingte Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 01-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-07-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva, Addl.CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 35ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 40

deleted the addition on account of interest on sticky advances and amortization of premium on Govt. securities. The Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal which was decided in favour of the assessee. 4. Subsequently, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 24.03.2018 after recording reasons and obtaining ... NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the bank has gone under liquidation for which the activities were stopped and therefore

Ashok Jagannath Kandge, Pune vs. Learned AO NFAC Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 2631/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2630 & 2631/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

Section 144Section 147Section 148

ld.CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. 8. Aggrieved with such order of the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the time hearing submitted that the notices were issued thrice out of which the assessee sought

Ashok Jagannath Kandge, Pune vs. Learned AO NFAC Assessment Centre, Pune

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

ITA 2630/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2630 & 2631/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

Section 144Section 147Section 148

Parner Vipassana Samiti, Ahmednagar vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1379/PUN/2024[2024-25]Status: HeardITAT Pune01 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil MuthaFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

earlier, he refused to grant approval u/s 80G of the Act. 6. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(Exemption), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Ground 1: Violation of principle of natural justice In the facts and circumstances of the case

C P Metaliks Private Limited, G.T. Road Bhiringee vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Durgapur

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1482/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, DR

Section 250Section 68

appeal is partly allowed.” The appeal was thus partly allowed. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 05. We have heard the submissions made by the Ld. DR. During the course of the appellate proceedings, we note that a proper

Zing Restaurants Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-8(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1466/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR

response from the assessee. Even the 2 ITANo.1466/KOL/2024 assessee has not been able to explain the delay of 498 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In view of the above, it is clear that the assessee is not interested in pursuing this appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed

Ponnusamy Priya, Trichy vs. ACIT, Circle 3(1), Trichy

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

ITA 994/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Rangaswamy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin Gowda, JCIT

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 48

grounds of appeal of the appellant are hereby dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a paper-book enclosing therein the original assessment order, the purchase deed and the sale deed of the immovable

Vellusamy Kavitha, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Tiruppur

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

ITA 979/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi VenkataramanFor Respondent: Smt. Samantha Mullamudi

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 44A

affidavit stating therein the reason for delay. On perusal of the same, I find there is sufficient reason for delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, I condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 3. The grounds raised ... estimate from 7% made by the AO to 6%. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR reiterated the submissions made before the Income-tax Authorities. 8. The Ld.DR supported the orders

Bright Classic Agencies, Tiruchengode vs. ITO, Ward-2, Tiruchengode

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

ITA 975/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi VenkataramanFor Respondent: Smt. Samantha Mullamudi

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270A

total turnover estimated by the AO. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR has filed a paper-book enclosing therein bank statements of the current account of the assessee firm, copy of VAT turnover certificate and comparable

Karupannan Ramasamy Shivakumar, Salem vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Salem

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

ITA 706/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri G. Akash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Samantha Mullamudi

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

discharge summary in support of his contention. On perusal of the same, I find there is sufficient reason for delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, I condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 3. The grounds raised ... Bank accounts. Hence, the above explanation is notacceptable and rejected.” 6. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR submitted that assessee was into the real estate business and Rs.51,00,000/- was withdrawn for the purpose of payment

Deivanayagam Bhuvaneshwari, Trichy vs. Income Tax Officer, Trichy

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

ITA 703/CHNY/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri Alagappan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Samantha Mullamudi

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

effect and call for payment of tax. On perusal of the same, I find there is sufficient reason for delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, I condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 3. The solitary issue raised ... deposit, the FAA confirmed the addition made by the AO. 6. Aggrieved by the order of FAA, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR had submitted apart from assessee’s own savings, assessee’s husband had withdrawn a sum of Rs.12,80,000/- from

Mrs. Kather Maher, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(4), Chennai

In the result, the relevant Ground No

ITA 689/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Ms. Lavanya, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 68Section 69A

inconsistent stands as regards the source of cash deposits. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR has placed on record the documents/evidences filed before the FAA such as :- 4 -: bank statements, written submissions filed before