“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

Hitech Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 9(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2614/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jun 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2614/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Hitech Advisory Services Pvt. Limited,………Appellant Flat No. 5A, 5Th Floor, Shantiniketan Apatment, Kaikhali Main Road, Vip Road, Kolkata-700052, West Bengal [Pan:Aacch3350B] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………...…….Respondent Ward-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Gopal Ram Sharma, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 24, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 26, 2025

assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 20 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 ... prevented in filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the stipulated time. Therefore, I am inclined to condone the delay of 20 days. Hence the delay is condoned. 4. The contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal

Unicorn Tradecom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 7(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2613/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jun 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2613/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Unicorn Tradecom Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 1D, Canal Road, 1St Floor, Room No. 101, Kolkata-700053, West Bengal [Pan:Aabcu0224E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………...…….Respondent Ward-7(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Gopal Ram Sharma, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 24, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 26, 2025 O R D E R

Section 249(2)

assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 50 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee

Nirmal Kumar Roy, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 49(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2398/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2398/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Nirmal Kumar Roy,…………………….………Appellant Kholishakota, 5 No. Kholishakota, Birati, North 24-Parganas-700051 [Pan:Adppr1577F] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………….…….Respondent Ward-49(1), Kolkata

assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 1 day in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal within

B.S.N.L Employees Junior Co Operative Creidt Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 17(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3264/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailbsnl Employees Junior Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., 1St Floor, Bsnl Office Of Cto, M.G. Road, Fort Mumbai, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400001 Pan : Aaaat8885H V/S Ito – 17(1)(2), Room No.109, 1St Floor Kautilya Bhavan, ……………… Respondent C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 Assessee By : Shri Shekhar Patwardhan Revenue By : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar PatwardhanFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

inadvertence, forwarded only the order for the assessment year 2020-21 to the consultant for taking necessary steps for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It is further submitted that later on, the assessee came to know of the order passed by the learned CIT(A) for the year under

Aamna Altafhussain Shariff, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 16(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3112/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Ms. Aamna Altafhussain Ito Ward-16(1)(1), Sharif, Aayakar Bhavan, 101-102 Meghdot-B, M.K. Road, Opp. Joggers Park, Churchgate, Vs. Lokhandwala, Mumbai, Andheri (West) Maharashtra – 420 020 Mumbai Maharashtra – 400 053 Pan: Aorps6003G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 249(4)(b)Section 69C

appellate proceedings and therefore was not aware of looking through the income tax portals for the orders and process of filing of appeal before the Tribunal. Apart from that, during the relevant period assessee suffered from a tragic loss of his mother and assessee was not receiving any professional work ... came to know that Ld. CI T(A) has passed the order against him on 26.11.2014 and assessee was advised to file an appeal before the Tribunal and accordingly the appeal was filed. 3. In view of the aforesaid circumstances that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was communicated

Samir Narain Bhojwani, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 261/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Chaitanya

Section 112Section 194CSection 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 50

made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and deleted the disallowance of expenses. Both the assessee and the revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) – Ground I (1.1 to 1.3) of assessee's appeal

Ashokkumar Chhajer, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT-27(1), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 2211/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

passed by ld. CIT(A). Apart from that it had been stated that there is a delay of 240 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In support of 2 Ashokkumar Chhajer the delay assessee has filed affidavit of the assessee wherein, it has been stated that the said ... passed an exparte order. Immediately upon the knowledge of the exparte order, assessee approached the tax consultant who has advised to file the appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Looking to these facts, the delay of 240 days is condoned. Since it is an exparte order, therefore, in the interest

ACIT 421 Mumbai, Mumbai City vs. Samir Narain Bhojwani, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the

ITA 1022/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 112Section 194CSection 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 50

Das Offshore Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3890/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Das Offshore Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sagar Uday, Plot No. F-3, Tax, Circle 1(2), Agroli, Sector 29, Mumbai Behind Cidco Bhawan, Vs. Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai - 400614 Maharashtra (Pan: Aaacd5996K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Mr. Fenil Bhatt, Ramesh Jain, Cas Revenue : Shri. Mahadevan A.M. Krishanan, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.06.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1055302006(1), Dated 22.08.2023 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(2), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 27.11.2017 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Mr. Fenil Bhatt, Ramesh Jain, CAsFor Respondent: Shri. Mahadevan A.M. Krishanan, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147

ITAT.” 3. At the very outset, it is noted that there is a brief delay of 10 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal, for which application for condonation of delay along with affidavit is placed on record. We have gone through the said documents explaining the reasons ... agree with the same and dismissed the appeal by sustaining the disallowance made by Ld.AO. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee raised the legal contention to challenge the validity of reopening of the case on the issue which has already

Mohd Aklakh, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1949/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalmohd Aklakh, Income Tax Officer, H.No.1772, Gali No.4, Ward-2(1)(4), Islam Nagar, Vs. Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad-201001. (Uttar Pradesh) Pan:Aglpa9361K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘The Cit(A) In Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 31.01.2024 U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short) For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Ld. Sr. Dr Appeared For The Revenue. 3. We Have Considered The Submissions Of The Ld. Sr. Dr. From The Perusal Of The Impugned Order It Clearly Shows That Despite Of Giving Several Opportunities Of Hearing, The Assessee Failed To Make Any Submissions Or Filed Documentary Evidences In Support Of His Claim, Therefore, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Compelled To Dispose Off The Appeal Of The Assessee By Confirming The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer.

Section 147

Before us also, the assessee has not come forward to dispute the order of Ld. CIT(A). However, when the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal, 2 IT No.1949/Del/2025 Mohd Aklakh vs. ITO it seems he is vigilant to represent his case before the Tribunal. Considering the fact that

Rekha Jain, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 26, Delhi

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

ITA 1577/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

dispute the order of the Ld. CIT(A). However, when the 2 IT Nos.1576 & 1577 /Del/2025 Rekha Jian vs. DCIT assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal, it seems that she is vigilant to represent her case before the Tribunal. Considering the facts that the assessee has failed to make

Rekha Jain, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-26, Delhi

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

ITA 1576/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Shanker Narayan Agarwal, Jodhpur vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 127/JODH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him & Also Before Assessing Authority In Regard To Making Addition Of Rs. 11,78,500/- As Unexplained Money. 2. That The Learned Ito & Cit Appeal Does Not Prove That Amount Previously Withdrawn From Bank Neither Invested Or Used By Assessee As Such The Order Under Appeal Is Bad In Law Thus Deserves To Be Set Aside. 3. That The Learned Ito & Cit Appeal Not Follow The Various Decision Of Itat Submitted Before Both Of Them & Decision Taken Contrary To Such Decision Is Bad In Law & Bad In Facts. 4. That Your Appellant Reserves The Right To Add, Amend & Alter Any Of Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal Before The Hearing Of Appeal.”

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT (A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now, the assessee has come in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced herein above. 3. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee reiterated the submissions as were made before

Manish Sharma, Kota vs. JCIT, Central Circle, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 619/JODH/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Date Of Hearing.

Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 269TSection 271DSection 271E

detailed submissions of the assessee, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4 Shri Manish Sharma, Kota. Now the assessee, has come in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced herein above. 3. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee reiterated the submissions as were made before

Rachna Goyal, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 529/JODH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

assessee after considering the submissions of the assessee. Now, aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT (A), the assessee has come in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced herein above. 4. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee submitted his written submission as under :- "Submission

Pelhoubeinuo Sopfii, Kohima vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Dimapur

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

ITA 11/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh GoenkaFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, JCIT

Section 10(26)Section 250Section 69A

confirmed the addition of Rs. 61,98,400/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer [AO]. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We observe that, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the ld. AO due to failure to substantiate

Mintu Rani, Patna vs. Assessement Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi

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

ITA 16/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 250

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. I.T.A. No.: 16/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mintu Rani. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, ['the NFAC] erred on facts

Nilu Kumari, Saran vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tx Dptt., Delhi

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

ITA 429/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 115BSection 147Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

Kumari. which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 06.03.2023. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the ld. A.O. has erred in passing order in both law and facts assessing

Jypore Manufacturing Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

added on the metal value. 5. Feeling dissatisfied with that order of the Id. CIT(A), the assessee preferred the present appeal before this tribunal challenging the finding of Id. CIT(A) on the ground as reproduced hereinabove. To support the grounds raised by the assessee ... Amar Kumari Surana v. Commissioner of Income-tax [89 TAXMAN 544 (RAJ.)] wherein it has been held as under: 5. In second appeal before the Tribunal, after considering the material on record, it gave a finding of fact that the correct value of the plot of land and sale consideration

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Malbros International Pvt Ltd, Faridkot

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections are dismissed

ITA 992/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The Dcit, Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Ludhiana. Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. Nos. 46 & 45/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2016-17 Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Vs Central Circle-2, Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Ludhiana. Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

Impex were found to have been sold and sales were also accepted by the Assessing Officer. The Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the earlier making following observations: "31. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. ITA No.992