“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

Sadayandi Lakshmanan Jegaratchagan, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncc-4, Coimbatore

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

ITA 618/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Erode, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT

Section 1Section 145Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250Section 69A

appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The limited submission of the Ld.AR before the Tribunal was that the assessee had received an amount of Rs.30 lakhs only on 06.04.2016 and same

Thaligai Primary Co Op Credit Society Ltd, Namakkal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward II

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

ITA 542/CHNY/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri Anand, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Samantha Mullamudi

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

respond to the various hearing notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority. :- 3 -: 4. Aggrieved the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that delay condonation application filed u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act for condoning the delay in filing

N. Leelakrishnan, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-1(1), Coimbatore

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

ITA 1079/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin Gowda, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69C

made by the AO was sustained by the FAA. 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 response filed during the e- proceedings along with the annexures, the Central Bank

Natarajan Maheswaran, Ariyalur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Perambalur

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

ITA 1062/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

addition made by the AO in the assessment order.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a paper-book enclosing therein confirmation letter, Aadhaar card of late Shri Pugazhenthi, break-up details of advance given

Sinnapayan Rathinam, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

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

ITA 1034/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

reason for belated filing of this appeal. 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 ... confirmed the view taken by the AO. :- 4 -: 6. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that on identical facts, the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Rangasamy Deepa

Gaman Narayanachetty Govindaraju, Bangalore vs. Assessing Officer, Tamilnadu

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

ITA 2907/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

medical certificate 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. 4. Brief facts ... passed by the AO does not require any intervention.” 6. 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 details filed during the course of assessment proceedings, appellate proceedings, the case laws

Vanangamudi Vairamani Pandiyan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2895/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 250

hence the reassessment order dated 27.03.2023 is valid. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed two sets of paper-book enclosing therein the notice issued during the course of reassessment proceedings, relevant portions

Anand Mulky, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(8), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 634/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Pundariksha, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 155BSection 68

partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Page 3 of 6 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and has filed written synopsis which is as under: The Appellant is an individual, engaged

Lalit R Jagawat HUF, Mumbai vs. DCIT 23(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 634/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 634/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18) Lalit R Jagawat Huf V/S. Dcit, 23(2), 80B Patwa Chawl, Room बिाम Mantru Mandir, Room No. No. 41, 3Rd Floor, Sheikh 114, 1St Floor, Tardeo Road, Momon Street, Zaveri Mumbai-400007 Bazar, Mumbai-400002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aachj7165D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Satya Prakash Singh राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Aditya Rai

For Appellant: Shri Satya Prakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai

Section 115BSection 250Section 68

Vishal Exports Overseas Limited (Gujarat High Court) Tax Appeal No. 2471 of 2009 "5. Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal did not address the question of correctness of the C.L.T. (Appeals)'s conclusion that amount of Rs.70 lakhs represented the genuine export sale

Ketan Himatlal Mehta, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. NFAC, Not Applicable

ITA 2498/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Kavita P. Kaushik

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 68

cash withdrawal to the appellant. In the result, the appeal is disallowed.” (Emphasis Supplied) 5. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced at Paragraph 2 above. 6. During the course of hearing Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee, after taking through

Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 110/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan-CIT-DR &

Section 115Section 14ASection 250

that case it is necessary to examine whether the disallowance can be reduced below the suo-motu disallowance at the stage of appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard it is relevant to consider the following observations of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Sajjan India Ltd. (supra ... revenue the ld. AR submitted that the tax effect on the said appeal is below the monetary limit for revenue to file appeal before the Tribunal as per CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024. The ld. AR in this regard presented the following table: Particular Amount – Rs. Ground on which

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5749/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan-CIT-DR &

Section 115Section 14ASection 250

Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4172/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan-CIT-DR &

Section 115Section 14ASection 250

Mandeep Singh S/O Sh. Narinder Singh Village and Post Office Tarmala Malout District Muktsar, Muktsar vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 2(5) Muktsar Jao Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2) Muktsar, Muktsar

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 645/ASR/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 282Section 69A

remained unjustified and unsubstantiated. Hence, the Assessment order is upheld and the ground is noted as dismissed.” 5. Now, the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal on the ground contained in the memorandum of appeal. I.T.A. No. 645/Asr/2024 7 Assessment Year: 2012-13 6. In course of hearing

Anbhao Parkash S/O Darshan Lal, Village Veere Wala Kalan, Faridkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Faridkot, Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, ITO Ward 1, Faridkaot

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

ITA 630/ASR/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, A.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 250oSection 69

addition of Rs.16,75,000/- u/s 69 of the Act . 4 I.T.A. No.630/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 5. Now, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal. 6. In course of hearing, the assessee has filed a paper book (containing

Basharat Saleem Rehtoo, Srinagar vs. DCIT, ACIT Cent. Circle, Srinagar

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 456/ASR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

first appellate authority and whose email id is also recorded in Form 35 , was entrusted with the responsibility of filing the second appeal before the tribunal, buy unfortunately Mr Dullo , has suffered a multi organ failure and has been admitted to hospital in critical condition and as such the collection

Bandan Mohanty, Bhubaneswar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 271/CTK/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Bandan Mohanty Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Plot-899, Jharpada, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar, 751006 Pan/Gir No. Afmpm 7898 D (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chitrasen Parida, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2025 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 (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 22.4.2024 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar- 1/14864/2019-20 Passed For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 304 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Dated 28.4.2025 Supported By An Affidavit Stating That The Order Passed By The Ld Cit(A), Nfac Dated 22.4.2024 Was Downloaded P A G E 1 | 5 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Chitrasen Parida, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 69

knowledge of the assessee and when outstanding demand payable intimated to the assessee, he contacted the tax consultant and filed the appeal before the Tribunal. It was in this backdrop that there was delay of 304 days in filing the appeal. It is prayed that the delay was not intentional ... from the side of the assessee and accordingly, ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Hence, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 6. At the time of hearing, ld AR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want

Dhiren Kumar Sahoo, Dhenkanal vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhenkanal Ward, Dhenkanal

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

ITA 270/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

assesse has not provided supporting documents/evidence to prove his claims except seeking adjournments throughout the entire proceedings. Hence, the assessee has preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any adjournment petition filed, when the matter was called for hearing. Hence, I proceed

Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Raigarh vs. ACIT, Range-1, Central Circle, Sambalpur

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

ITA 269/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)

from the side of the assessee and accordingly, Id CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Hence, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard Id Sr. D.R and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that

Tapas Kumar Chanda, Jajpur Town vs. Income Tax Officer, Jajpur Road

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

ITA 264/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Before Shri Rl Reddy(Kz) Assessment Year : 2017-18 Tapas Tapas Kumar Kumar Chanda, Chanda, M/S M/S Vs. Ito, Ward Jajpur, Jajpur Ito, Ward Jajpur, Jajpur Satyanarayan Satyanarayan Jewellwers Jew Garipur, Durga Cinema Road, Garipur, Durga Cinema Road, Jajpur, Town, Jajpur 755001 Jajpur, Town, Jajpur 755001 Pan/Gir No. Alrpc 1318 B Alrpc 1318 B (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Digant Das, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/06/202 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/202 /2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Digant Das, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144

from the side of the assessee and accordingly, ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Hence, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 6. At the time of hearing, ld AR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want