← All Phrases

“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

Shri Chetan Seth, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2985/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

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

Shri Chetan Seth, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2983/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2005-06

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

Sh Ranjeet Kumar Sharma, Gwalior vs. ITO 2(1), Gwalior

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with the observations made herein above

ITA 62/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalito, 2(1), Shri Ranjeet Kumar Gawalior. Sharma, Vs. Meera Colony, Bihind-477447 Madhya Pradesh. Pan-Bwdps0542K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv. & Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv. Department By Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

Section 143(3)Section 69A

justice. In view of this and in the interest of justice, we find sufficient cause to condone the delay caused in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and therefore, admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual ... order, the assesse preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee, thus, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “Ground No. 1 - On the facts & circumstances of the case the learned

Vishnu Soni, Shivpuri vs. ITO, Ashoknagar

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

ITA 38/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Mr. Vishnu Soni Ito, Ashok Nagar, Sadar Bazar, Vs. Aayakar Bawan, Shivpuri, Citiy Centre, Madhya Pradesh-473551 Gwalior, Madhya Pan-Awlps6188C Pradesh-474001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

towards unexplained investment in acquisition of property stood confirmed. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking the following grounds of appeal. “1. That as in the case of the Appellant no valid proceedings U/S 147/148 of the Act were initiated thus

Ranjana Chaturvedi, Mathura vs. Income Tax Officer 1(3)(1), Mathura

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 152/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalito-1(3)(1), Ranjna Chaturvedi Ayakar Bhawan, 9A, T Point, Behind Back Vs. Radhika Vihar, Gate Skjs, Govind Nagar, Phase-Ii, Mathura-281001 (U.P.) Mathura-281004 (U.P.) Pan-Afopc4950N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M.M. Agarwal, Ca Department By Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

order, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee, therefore, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal: - 1. Because section 115BBE had no application for the year under consideration. 2. Because in the facts

Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Shivpuri vs. Income Tax Officer Shivpuri, Shivpuri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 143/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 258Section 69A

impugned order dt. 11.02.2025 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of ld. CIT(A), assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal on the strength of following grounds of appeal: “1. That the appellate order passed u/s 250 dt. 11.02.2025 is not in accordance with

Brajendra Vikram Singh, Jalaun vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(5), Orai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 120/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Brajendra Vikram Singh Ward-2(1)(5), 58, Ram Nagar Ajnari Vs. Orai-285001. Road, Orai, Jalaun-285001. Pan-Ciops6701G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 6

impugned order dated 22.12.2023 wherein part relief was allowed to the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal, wherein following grounds of appeal are taken: “01. The Income Tax Officer as well as CIT(A)/NFAC has grossly erred

Shashi Kant, Mathura vs. Income Tax Officer 1(3)(4) Mathura, Mathura

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 114/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Shashi Kant, Officer,1(3)(4) Hardev Ganj Kosi Kalan, Vs. Mathura. Mathura, Uttar Pradesh-281403 Pan-Aghpk0948G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

vide impugned order dated 24.09.2024 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the order passed by the NFAC dated 24.09.2024 is bad in law being not passed

Maya Sikshan Prashikshan Sansthan, Mendu Road Hathras vs. Income Tax Officer, Hathras

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 559/AGR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Maya Sikshan Ward-(3)(4), Prashikshan Sansthan, Vs. Hathras. Ravinder Singh Prakash Textile Compound, Mendu Road, Hathras-204101 Pan-Aaabm5383N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

rightly been dismissed by CPC and, accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Against such order, the assessee society preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, the Ld. AR of the assessee reiterated the same arguments which were placed before

Shree Ramraja Homes Pvt.Ltd, Jhansi vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Agra

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

ITA 205/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwaldcit, Shree Ramraja Homes Circle-2(1)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Sanjay Place, Agra. 7, Om Building, New Road, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh- 284002 Pan-Aapcs3955G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Utsav Sehgal, Ca Department By Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/05/2025 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 The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Dated 28.03.2024, In Appeal No. Nfac/2016-17/10165707 For Assessment Year 2017- 18 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, Inshort) Dated 21.03.2022. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate & Filed Its Return Shree Ramraja Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit Of Income On 28.09.2017 Declaring Total Income At Rs.46,53,593/-. The Assessing Officer Has Information In Its Possession That Assessee Has Made Cash Deposit In Specified Bank Notes (Sbn) During The Demonetization Period Of Rs.34,00,000/-, Therefore, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Way Of Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act On 31.03.2021 After Recording The Reasons & Taking Necessary Approvals From The Competent Authority. The Assessee Has Not Filed Any Return Of Income In Response To Notice U/S 148 Nor Made Any Response To The Notices Issued By The Ao On Various Occasions Including Show Cause Notice Dated 08.03.2022. Therefore, The Ao Has Completed The Assessment U/S 144 Of The Act By Making Addition Of Rs.34,00,000/- By Treating The Same As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act & Further Invoked The Provisions Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act.

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69A

October, 2016 totaling to Rs.2,06,000/-. Shree Ramraja Homes Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 4. Against such order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following the grounds of appeal: “1(a). That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), (hereinafter referred

Life Care Hospital, Sirohi vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle-1, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 938/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

assessee preferred appeal before the 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. AR of the assessee submitted her ground-wise written submission as under :- “ Ground

Late Shreeniwas Joshi, Ranchi vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Ranchi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 466/RAN/2024[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi24 Jun 2025AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.466/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2001-02 Late Shreeniwas Joshi....................................…...........................……….……Appellant Through L/H Suresh Joshi, Adarsh Market, Upper Bazar, Ranchi-834001. [Pan: Aavpj1437H] Vs. Acit, Circle-3, Ranchi……........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 24, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 10.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153(2)Section 250

allowed the appeal of the assessee. I.T.A. No.466/Ran/2024 Late Shreeniwas Joshi 2.2 Dissatisfied with the said order, the department went in appeal before the Tribunal where the Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeal. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed an order u/s 147/144 of the Act by assessing total income ... assessee by simply upholding the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal raising various grounds. However, the primary contention of the assessee is that when the original assessee namely Late Shree Niwas Joshi died, his wife

Smt..Anuradha, Pathankot vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(1), Pathankot

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 437/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

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

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250

much later date, regarding disposal of the appeal, she contacted her lawyer, who guided her to file this appeal before the tribunal after a delay of 52 (fifty-two) days. Since the delay was not intentional on her part, she prayed for condonation of the delay and for admission

Universal Biomass Energy Private Limited, Guruharsahai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Ferozepur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 267/ASR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 80I

curtailed by this order of dismissal.” I.T.A. No. 267/Asr/2024 5 Assessment Year: 2018-19 6. Now, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on the ground contained in the memorandum of appeal. 7. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that in the instant case

Rishi Agarwal, Guwahati vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Guwahati

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

ITA 266/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati24 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69C

which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 28.12.2022. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Id. CIT(Appeal) ought to have hold that the Order of Assessment dated ... appeal was accordingly dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A). Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made and the paper book filed have been examined. During the course of the appeal

Hrudananda Subudhi, Ratnapur Sahi vs. ITO, Bhubaneswar, Ward Khuda

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

ITA 190/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY (Vice President), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kumar Dash & Biswa RanjanFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

engaged by the assessee could not inform the assessee regarding passing of the impugned order, which occurred 291 days delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to meet the principle of natural justice

Satya Prakash, Sarwan Bazar, Barachatti, Gaya vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(2), Gaya, Rai Kashi Nath Chowk, Bihar

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

ITA 136/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 136/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Satya Prakash,..………….……….………..………Appellant Sarwan Bazar, Barachatti, Gaya-824201, Bihar [Pan:Agipp4571B] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………….…....Respondent Ward-3(2), Gaya, Rai Kashi Nath Chowk, Gaya-823001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Kumar Kartik, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 24, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

case, the assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer appeal, due to that there was a delay of 18 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

Virendra Sah, Purnea vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi

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

ITA 132/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 132/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Virendra Sah,…………….……….………..………Appellant Madhavnagar Tirasi Tola, Bhawanipur, Purnea-854204, Bihar [Pan:Gvdps7989Q] -Vs.- Assessment Unit, ………………………….…....Respondent Income Tax Department, Nfac, Delhi Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kumar Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 24, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 44A

assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 263 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

Vivek Kumar Rana, Patna vs. Assessement Unit, Delhi

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

ITA 115/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 115/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Vivek Kumar Rana,…….……….………..………Appellant 101, Artak Apartment, Ashiana Road, B.V. College, S.O. Rukanpura, Patna-800014, Bihar [Pan:Adhpr8630D] -Vs.- Assessment Unit, Delhi,………………….…....Respondent Ito/Nfac, Delhi Appearances By: Shri Manish Sinha, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 24, 2025 O R D E R

Section 139Section 271(1)(c)

case, the assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer appeal, due to that there was a delay of 70 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

ITO, Ward-2(1), Patna vs. M/S Sun Comtech Pvt Ltd, Patna

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

ITA 108/PAT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 250

been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 22.12.2018. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “(i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred ... Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Sun Comtech Pvt. Ltd. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. 5. Ground nos. (i) and (ii) are regarding deletion