“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

Bidadi Rythara Seva Sahakara Bank Ltd, Ramanagara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ramnagar

In the result, the delay is condoned, and the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 567/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Gokul, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 250(6)

regular Chief Executive Officer (CEO) from 2014 to 2022, the assessee could not appear before the learned CIT(A) or file the appeal before the Tribunal in time. The new CEO, appointed in 2022, was unaware of the pending proceedings and the timelines involved. A synopsis explaining these reasons

Afroz Khan, Davanagere vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Davanagere

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

ITA 453/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Ramanagowda S Gowdar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate for Standing

Section 143(1)Section 250(6)

assessment year 2021-22. 2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 62 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the delay, stating that the earlier tax consultant failed to track the passing of the order

Elsie Hubald, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 2(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, ground nos. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 955/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: 19.06.2025

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 69

made towards unexplained cash credit and sustained the addition made towards unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 3. The ld. AR raised

Romaan Mohd Hussain Pathan, Mumbai vs. ACIT-21(3), Piramal Chambers Mumbai

ITA 45/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: the Tribunal on the ground reproduced at Paragraph 2 above.

For Appellant: Ms. Radha HalbeFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(2)(b)

preferred by the Assessee was dismissed vide order dated, 10/11/2024, by the CIT(A). 5. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the ground reproduced at Paragraph 2 above. 6. The Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee appearing before us submitted that the Assessee

Gold Coin Apartments Co Operative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3185/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vidyadhar KhandekarFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmal

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

provisions contained in Section 80P(4) of the 2 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Act. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal challenging disallowance on the contending the Assessee was entitled to claim deduction of INR.3,15,256/- under Section ... would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. In the present the Appellant has provided sufficient explanation for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In our view, no benefit would have accrued to the Appellant by delaying filing of appeal. When substantial justice and technical consideration

Alfa Distilleries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2389/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the CIT (A) and details were under compilation. However, without considering the request of the appellant and without granting any further reasonable opportunity to the Appellant to present its case, the very next day, ie. on 04/02/2025 passed the ex-parte order. Therefore, the order passed under Section 250 r.w. Section 254 may be set aside to the CIT (A).

For Appellant: Ms. Neelam JadhavFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

treated as allowed for statistical purposes.” (Emphasis Supplied) 6. The Assessee has impugned the above order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in appeal before the Tribunal. On perusal of the same, it 3 Assessment Year 2012-2013 becomes evident that despite taking note of the Order, dated 31/07/2017, passed

Rga International Reinsurance Company Designated Activity Company, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) - Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1092/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 9(1)(i)

relied on its own order for AY 2021-22 and upheld the addition made by the AO. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 6. The ld. AR at the outset submitted

Nidhi Aggarwal, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 53(2), Delhi

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

ITA 922/DEL/2025[2017-2018 ]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 Nidhi Aggarwal Vs. Ito G-23, Lgf South Ward- 53 (2) Extension Part-I Delhi Pan No. Afupa7104E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 68

vide order dated 09.01.2025 dismissed the appeal in non-compliance. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. Counsel for assessee has submitted that Ld. NFAC should have decided the appeal on merit. He also submitted that sufficient opportunity

Rama University Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur vs. The Assessment Unit, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 86/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 86/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2020-21 Ram University Uttar Pradesh, Vs The Assessment Unit, 2Nd Floor, E-Ramp, 100, Rama City, G. T. Road, Mandhana, U.P.-209217 Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi-110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadtr0638L Assessee By: Sh. Ashutosh Thakur, Adv. & Sh. Ritesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.06.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2020-21, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1067473637(1) Dated 09.08.2024, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Ashutosh Thakur, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 57

order dated 14th January, 2019. The assessee being aggrieved by the disallowed portion of the 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 Officer

Raman Kumar, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 62(2), Delhi

The appeal is allowed, for statistical purposes only

ITA 2020/DEL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Raman Kumar, Vs Ito, C9/175, Yamuna Vihar, Ward-62(2), New Delhi - 110 053. Delhi Pan: Aikpk1659F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Arzoo Rai, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Ms Arzoo Rai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. DR

Section 249(4)(b)

Income-tax (Appeals), New Delhi. 2. At the outset, the ld. AR has pointed out that there was a delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal for which an application has been filed for condonation of the delay. Considering that the assessee is an individual and has sought condonation

Sandeep Kumar Gautam, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2(2)(3), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1469/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarsandeep Kumar Gautam, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(2)(3), Ghaziabad House No. 921, Mange Ram Jatan House, Ghaziabad (Pan: Ambpg5029J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Respondent By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.06.2025 Order Per Shamim Yahya, Am : This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi On The Following Grounds:- 1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing An Exparte Order Without Considering That In This Case, There Was No Deliberate Attempt On The Part Of The Appellate To, Not To, Reply To The Notices Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 144

consideration, for which Ld. DR did not controvert. 3. It is noted that there is a delay of 11 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. On perusing the records and after hearing both the sides, we find reasonable cause has been attributed for filing the belated appeal before

Mehinder Sharma, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 61(1), Delhi

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

ITA 4883/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh.Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2016-17 Mehinder Sharma, E-156 Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Greater Kailash Part-1, New Income Tax Circle 61(1) Delhi , 110048 Delhi Pan No.Aakps7142R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 47Section 68

order dated 22-08-2024 dismissed the appeal in non -compliance. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. Counsel for assessee has submitted that Ld. NFAC should have decided the appeal on merit. He also submitted that sufficient

ITO, Ward-1(1), Faridabad vs. Chaman, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2774/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Chaman, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), H. No. 437, Sector-9, Faridabad Faridabad Pan: Bfapd6698P (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.103/Del/2024 [Arising Out Of Ita No.2774/Del/2024] Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chaman, H. No. 437, Sector-9, Ward-1(1), Faridabad, Haryana Faridabad Pan: Bfapd6698P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Gaurav, Adv. Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.06.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No. 2774/Del/2024 & Assessee’S Cross Objection C.O. No. 103/Del/2024 For Assessment Year 2017- 18, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The

Section 147Section 250(4)

No.2774/Del/2024 & C.O. No. 103/Del/2024 4. It is in this factual backdrop that the Revenue has come in the appeal before the tribunal inter alia seeking to reverse the lower appellate findings deleting land acquisition compensation addition and unexplained cash credit entries as per its above substantive grounds raised ... afresh after making requisite enquiries and proper verification with regard to taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest

Sakuntala Devi, Buland Shahr vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2), Buland Shahr

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

ITA 2032/DEL/2024[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsakuntala Dev, Income Tax Officer Village Dastoora, Ward-3(2), Post Bicchat Sujanpur, Vs. Buland Shahr. Khurja District, Buland Sahar, Uttar Pradesh-203203. Pan:Dnqpd2476F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.06.2025 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), Dated 24.03.2024 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Ld. Sr. Dr Appeared For The Revenue. 3. Heard The Ld. Sr. Dr & Perused The Record Available. From Perusal Of The Impugned Order, It Clearly Shows That The Despite Of Giving Various Opportunities Of Hearing, The Assessee Failed To Make Any Submissions Or Filed Documentary Evidence In Support Of Her Claim. Therefore, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Compelled To Disposed Of The Appeal Of The Assessee By Confirming Various Additions Made By The Assessing Officer. Before Us Also, The Assessee Has Not Come Forward To Dispute The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), However, When The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Before The Tribunal, It Seems That She Is Vigilant To Represent Her Case Before The Tribunal. Considering The Facts That Assessee

also, the assessee has not come forward to dispute the order of Ld. CIT(A), however, when the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal, it seems that she is vigilant to represent her case before the Tribunal. Considering the facts that assessee 2 IT No.2032/Del/2024 Sakuntala Devi

Mithilesh Shukla, Exemption Circle Ghaziabad vs. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, Noida

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

ITA 1223/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 28-03-2019 allowed the appeal against which the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. PCIT passed the order under Section 263 and gave the direction to the AO, and the AO completed the assessment on 27.12.2017. Accordingly, penalty proceedings were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Declining the contention raised by the assessee the AO proceeded to levy the penalty u/s.271 (1)(c) of the Act.

Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 28-03-2019 allowed the appeal against which the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. PCIT passed the order under Section 263 and gave the direction to the AO, and the AO completed the assessment

Chetan Seth, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-15(3), Delhi

ITA 1808/DEL/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 151Section 2(22)(e)

challenging the above finding of the ld. CIT(A) in the case of M/s RAAS upon approval by the competent authority filed an appeal before the Tribunal, Delhi, vide ITA No.3151/Del/2011 and 2415/Del/2011 for AY 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively. But as on date of the reopening ... secondly his directions to tax the said amount in the hands of the assessee Shri Chetan Seth, the assessee (M/s RAAS) filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide its order dated 10.12.2018 in ITA No. 3123/Del/2010 and 3815/Del/2011 (assessee’s appeal

National Housing Bank, New Delhi vs. Adnl. CIT Special Range 6, New Delhi

ITA 1158/DEL/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 271(1)(c)

together and are being disposed off by this common order. At the outset, it is worth mentioning that this is third round of appeal before the Tribunal. On earlier two occasions, the Tribunal remanded ITA No.1717/Del/2019 ITA No. 1158/Del/2023 National Housing Bank the matter back (both quantum and penalty appeals

Fil India Business & Research Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1), C.R Building, Delhi

The appeal of the assesse is partly allowed

ITA 1948/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 920Section 92CSection 92C(3)

effecting order based on which the AO has passed the final assessment order. Aggrieved by the said final order, the assessee preferred present appeal before the Tribunal. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are as under: “The following grounds of appeal are independent of, and without prejudice

National Housing Bank, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-17(2), New Delhi

ITA 1717/DEL/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 271(1)(c)

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Billet Procon Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 1382/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

Section 68

scope of Rule 27. The Appellant - assessee, as a respondent before the Tribunal was within its right to support the order under appeal before the Tribunal by attacking the grounds decided against him. It should nevertheless be borne in mind that Rule 27 cannot be invoked by a Respondent ... been decided against him in the order appealed by the Appellant, which has no bearing on the result of order impugned in appeal before the Tribunal, the appropriate remedy would lie in of filing a cross appeal or cross objection. In that event, as explained above, Rule 27 cannot