“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

Gujarat Guardian Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1966/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.1966 और 1967/िद"ी/2018(िन.व. 2013-14 और 2014-15)

For Appellant: S/Shri Neeraj Jain, Advocate & Kunal Pandey, CharteredFor Respondent: Ms. Prajna Paramita, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 80I

books of account nor has complied with the requirement of audit prescribed u/s.80IA(7) of the Act. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA 4 ITA Nos.1819, 1966 & 1967/DEL/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15) no.973/Del/2015. The Tribunal after examining the facts for the assessment year

ACIT, Circle-10(2), New Delhi vs. Gujarat Guardian Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1819/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.1966 और 1967/िद"ी/2018(िन.व. 2013-14 और 2014-15)

For Appellant: S/Shri Neeraj Jain, Advocate & Kunal Pandey, CharteredFor Respondent: Ms. Prajna Paramita, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 80I

Ellapu Narasamma L/R of Late Ellapu Appa Rao, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Visakhapatnam

ITA 414/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

learning about the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) had thereafter, involving no further loss of time, filed the present appeal before the Tribunal involving a delay of 121 days. The Ld.AR submitted that as the delay in filing the present appeal had occasioned

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 274/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.268, 270, 271 & 274/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner of Income बनाम Tax, Central Circle-02, Jaipur Vs. Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Limited F-19, Gautam Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCK7512P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CA राजस्व

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271DSection 271E

where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 or an appeal to the Tribunal under section 253, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition ... deletes or reduces the addition made on account of concealed income and the Department takes up the matter in further appeal before the Tribunal. Sometimes, a final decision on the quantum of the concealed income becomes available only after the expiry of the two years time- limit. 18. Section

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. M/S Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 271/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271DSection 271E

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. M/S Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 270/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271DSection 271E

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 268/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.268, 270, 271 & 274/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner of Income बनाम Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Tax, Vs. Limited Central Circle-02, Jaipur F-19, Gautam Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCK7512P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri R. K. Bhatra, CA राजस्व की

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271DSection 271E

Harblas Singh, Ambala vs. Income Tax Officer, Ambala

ITA 749/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 749/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Harblas Singh, Vs The Ito, 29/30, Parry Hotel, Ambala. Bank Road, Ambala. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bzwps4348R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rohit Bector, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Bector, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 69A

Hearing : 24.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.06.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 14.05.2024 passed for assessment year

Harblas Singh, Ambala vs. Income Tax Officer, Ambala

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 568/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 568/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Harblas Singh, Vs The Ito, 29/30, Parry Hotel, Ward – 1, Bank Road, Ambala. Ambala. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bzwps4348R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rohit Bector, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Bector, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 253Section 254(2)

Adani Infrastructure Management Services Limited, Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Gujarat

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

ITA 580/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.” 3.2 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The primary issue in dispute is whether the contribution

Mr. Anil Jagannath Kedar, Solapur vs. Ward 1(2), Solapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 567/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.567/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Anil Jagannath Kedar, V The Income Tax Officer, At Post-Wasud, Sangola, S Ward-1(2), Solapur. Dist – Solapur – 413307. Maharashtra. Pan : Asvpk0584A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna & Shri Aakash Parakh – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Rajesh Haladkar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 25/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-7, Kolkata Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Y.2017-18, Dated 24.01.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order U/S.144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 19.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Appeal

Section 144Section 250

January, 2019. The assessee being aggrieved by the disallowed portion of the ITA No. 567/PUN/2024 [A] order passed by the CIT(A) preferred appeal before the Tribunal and in the appeal additional ground was raised contending that the action of the CIT(A) in confirming the action of the Assessing

Manaswita Dasgupta, Barakkpore vs. I.T.O.Ward-51(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 90/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 90/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-2022 Manaswita Dasgupta,…………….….………Appellant 482/C, Anandmath, ‘C’ Block, Ichapur, Nawabgunj, S.O. Barrakpore, North 24-Parganas-743144, W.B., [Pan:Bpupd5881C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………….…….Respondent Ward-51(1), Kolkata, Uttarapan Complex, Ultadanga, Maniktala Civil Centre, Kolkata-700054

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)

Advocate on 11.09.2024, she did not get the certain signed documents and was unable to attend to the compliance for filing of appeal before the Tribunal. When the assessee came to know about the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) without considering the merit of the case, the assessee ... approached another ld. A.R. to prefer appeal, due to that there was a delay of 166 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee was prevented

Sanjay Taki, Howrah vs. DCIT, Circle 49(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 872/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 872/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Sanjay Taki,……………………….………..………Appellant 264, K. Road, Dasnagar, Belgachia, Howrah-711105, West Bengal [Pan:Afppt0288K] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..Respondent Circle-49(1), Kolkata, Income Tax Office, Uttarapan Complex, Ds-Iv, Kolkata-700054, West Bengal Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 25, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 26, 2025 O R D E R

assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 113 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee

Sudeshna Pradhan, Purba Medinipur vs. DCIT, Ward 27(1), Haldia

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

ITA 825/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 825/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Sudeshna Pradhan,…………………..….………Appellant C/O. M/S. Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, C.R. Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700072 [Pan:Alppp9150Q] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.…….Respondent Ward-27(1), Haldia, Basudevpur, Talpukur, Khanjan Chak, Haldia, Midnapore-721101, West Bengal

assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 852 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee

Swabhumi Foundation, North Twenty Four Parganas vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Exemption, Kolkata

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

ITA 771/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Respondent: Shri Miraz D. Shah, AR

Section 11Section 13(3)Section 250

order of the Ld. CIT(A) was received in the functional email which led to the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and because of improper representation, the addition was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee requested that the appeal order may be set aside

Rajib Kumar Das, Bankura vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Bankura

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

ITA 611/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 611/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Rajib Kumar Das,……………………...………Appellant Senhaty Colony, Bishnupur, Bankura-722122, West Bengal [Pan:Aqdpd7255K] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………….…..Respondent Ward-3(1), Bankura, Income Tax Building, Kenduadihi, Bankura-722102, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 25, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 26, 2025 O R D E R

assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 330 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee

Piru Prasad Goswami, Bankura vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Bankura

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

ITA 607/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 607/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Piru Prasad Goswami,…………………...………Appellant Vill. Rameshwarkuria, P.O. Pandua, Bankura-722206, West Bengal [Pan:Akspg3059K] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………….…….Respondent Ward-3(1), Bankura, Income Tax Building, Kenduadihi, Bankura-722102, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 25, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 26, 2025 O R D E R

assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 360 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee

Vaibhav Dealers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-8(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 171/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 171/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Vaibhav Dealers Pvt. Limited,.…….………Appellant 12, Mangoe Lane, 1St Floor, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aaccv6238N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………….…….Respondent Ward-8(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 52 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee

Karunanjali Transport Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 12(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 15/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jun 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 15/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Karunanjali Transports Pvt. Ltd.,…...………Appellant 22C, Manohar Pukur Road, Kalighat, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aacck9740N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………….…….Respondent Ward-12(3), Kolkata, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Esplanade, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Miraz D. Shah, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 25, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 26, 2025 O R D E R

assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 34 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee

Radheshyam Sahu, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward 47(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 143/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 143/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Radheshyam Sahu,………..…..………...………Appellant 17, Belilious Road, Near Vikram Vidyalaya Branch, Howrah-711101, West Bengal [Pan:Bxrps5768N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………….…….Respondent Ward-47(2), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri Miraz D. Shah, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 25, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 26, 2025 O R D E R

assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 109 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee