← 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

Sharad Shamrao Sawant, Sangli vs. Assestant Comissioner of Income Tax Central Circle Kolhapur, Kolhapur

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

ITA 2626/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Umeshkumar M. MaliFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

upheld. The ground nos. 1.1 to 1.3 raised by the appellant are DISMISSED.” 6. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 7. The Ld. AR at the outset submitted that the impugned income of Rs. 14,85,300/- alleged

Ashirwad Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle, Pune

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

ITA 190/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Raja B. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 2(15)

correct. In view of the above, the ground of appeal nos. 1 to 6 are dismissed.” 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is bad in law, and contrary

Rajendra Prasad Anne, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward- 9(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1298/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 46 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal against the impugned order of the Ld. ITA No.1298/Hyd/2024 2 CIT(A). The learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the due date for filing the appeal

International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage Employees Provident Fund (Icid Pf Trust), New Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 4204/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10Section 10(21)Section 10(25)(ii)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

considering overall facts of the case and decide the matter on merit, the only recourse available to the assessee is to file appeal before the Tribunal. 11. We further see that the Ld. CIT(A), in remanded proceedings, has not considered the case laws specifically mentioned in the Tribunal order

International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage Employees Provident Fund (Icid Pf Trust), New Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 4203/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10Section 10(21)Section 10(25)(ii)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

considering overall facts of the case and decide the matter on merit, the only recourse available to the assessee is to file appeal before the Tribunal. 11. We further see that the Ld. CIT(A), in remanded proceedings, has not considered the case laws specifically mentioned in the Tribunal order

Dawat E Islami Anantnag, Anantnag vs. CIT(Exemption) Chandigarh, Chandigarh

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

ITA 252/ASR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Jun 2025

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(b)

eligible for registration u/s 12A of the Act. The assessee is now in appeal before the tribunal on the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal. 8. In course of hearing before the tribunal, the Ld AR of the assessee has furnished voluminous paper book containing six binding volumes , containing

Singapalli Rajgopal Rao, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(8), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 111/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.111/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Singapalli Rajgopal Rao Income Tax Officer 34/A Sundernagar, Udhna- Vs. Ward No.3(2)(8), Surat Navsari Road, Bhestan, Surat- 395 023 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abtpr 0192 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Tinish Mody, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr-Dr अपील पंजीकरण/Appeal Instituted On 27/01/2025 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/06/2025

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

without proper supporting evidences. Hence, the appeal was dismissed. 4. Further aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the assessee filed paper book containing various details submitted to the lower authorities and some of case laws, where

Mukeshbhai Kishorbhai Lakhani, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(3)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is party allowed

ITA 110/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.110/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Mukeshbhai Kishorbhai Lakhani Income Tax Officer 201, Patel Mansion 20 Sadhana Vs. Ward No.3(3)(3), Surat, Society, Opp. Jain D, Lambe Ayakar Bhawan, Majura Hanuman Road, Varacha Gate Nr. New Civil Hospital, Matawadi, Surat-395 006 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abppl 9388 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

ground was partly allowed. ITA No.110/SRT/2024/AY.2012-13 Mukeshbhai K Lakhani 5. Further aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR relied on the grounds of appeal and statement of facts. He has also filed paper book containing various case laws

Ashokkumar Bhulabhai Rathod, Mahuva vs. NFAC, Delhi Current Jurisdiction - ITO Ward 1 Bardoli, Bardoli

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

ITA 1255/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1253 To 1255/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Ashokkumar Bhulabhai Rathod Nfac, Delhi Current Opp. Reliance Tower, Vs Jurisdiction-Income Tax Officer, Karcheliya, Mahuva-394 240 . Ward No.1, Bardoli, Income-Tax Office, 2Nd Floor, Opp. Jalaram Temple, Station Road, Bardoli- 394 601 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abxpr 3858 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 07/05/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From The Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act’) All Dated 30.09.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac),Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, ‘Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16, Which In Turn Arose Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Dated 24.05.2023, 18.05.2023 & 19.05.2023. Since Facts Are Same Except Variance Of Amounts, With Consent Of The Parties, The Appeals Were Heard Together & A Common

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal. 5. Further aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that the notices were issued in wrong e-mail address i.e., dipal_it_shah@yahoo.in instead of drashokrathod42@gmail.com mentioned in Form

Ashokkumar Bhulabhai Rathod, Mahuva vs. NFAC, Delhi Current Jurisdiction - ITO Ward - 1, Bardoli

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

ITA 1254/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1253 To 1255/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Ashokkumar Bhulabhai Rathod Nfac, Delhi Current Opp. Reliance Tower, Vs Jurisdiction-Income Tax Officer, Karcheliya, Mahuva-394 240 . Ward No.1, Bardoli, Income-Tax Office, 2Nd Floor, Opp. Jalaram Temple, Station Road, Bardoli- 394 601 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abxpr 3858 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 07/05/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From The Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act’) All Dated 30.09.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac),Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, ‘Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16, Which In Turn Arose Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Dated 24.05.2023, 18.05.2023 & 19.05.2023. Since Facts Are Same Except Variance Of Amounts, With Consent Of The Parties, The Appeals Were Heard Together & A Common

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal. 5. Further aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that the notices were issued in wrong e-mail address i.e., dipal_it_shah@yahoo.in instead of drashokrathod42@gmail.com mentioned in Form

Ashokkumar Bhulabhai Rathod, Mahuva vs. NFAC, Delhi Current Jurisdiction - ITO Ward 1, Bardoli

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

ITA 1253/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1253 To 1255/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Ashokkumar Bhulabhai Rathod Nfac, Delhi Current Opp. Reliance Tower, Vs Jurisdiction-Income Tax Officer, Karcheliya, Mahuva-394 240 . Ward No.1, Bardoli, Income-Tax Office, 2Nd Floor, Opp. Jalaram Temple, Station Road, Bardoli- 394 601 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abxpr 3858 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 07/05/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From The Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act’) All Dated 30.09.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac),Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, ‘Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16, Which In Turn Arose Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Dated 24.05.2023, 18.05.2023 & 19.05.2023. Since Facts Are Same Except Variance Of Amounts, With Consent Of The Parties, The Appeals Were Heard Together & A Common

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal. 5. Further aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that the notices were issued in wrong e-mail address i.e., dipal_it_shah@yahoo.in instead of drashokrathod42@gmail.com mentioned in Form

Saksham Kushthanteya Swabhimani Sanstha, Nagbhid vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms as indicated above

ITA 154/NAG/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

no.154/Nag./2025 2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 552 days in filing of the instant appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed following submissions:– “APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY The impugned order dt. 19.06.2023 u/s.12AB r.w.s. 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the I.T.Act

Vikas Mineral Foods Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(4), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1001/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1001/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vikas Mineral Foods Pvt.Ltd., The Ito, House No.20, Nac, Vs Ward 3(4), Shivalik Enclave, Chandigarh. Mani Majra. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabcv2453J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Harry Rikhy, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.06.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Harry Rikhy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

Hearing : 26.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 19.06.2025 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 (in short ‘the CIT’) dated 13.05.2024 passed for assessment year 2011-12. 2. The Registry

Sh. Gurjit Singh, Ambala City vs. Pr. CIT, Panchkula

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 98/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 98/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Gurjit Singh, The Pcit, #286, Jatt Mohalla, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Panjokhra, Ambala City. Sector 2, Panchkula. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ftpps2607A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 377/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Jagdeep Singh, The Pcit, Village – Raipur, Vs Patiala. Tehsil-Rajpura, Distt. Patiala. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Fsups4290F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.06.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 9(1)(a)

respectively. As pointed out by the Ld. counsel, these proposals have been moved by the concerned officers during arguments of the present appeal before the Tribunal. Under these circumstances, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) cannot be justified. In the case of Smt. Amarjit Kaur vs. ITO (supra

Sh. Jagdeep Singh, Patiala vs. Pr. C.I.T., Patiala

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 377/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 98/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Gurjit Singh, The Pcit, #286, Jatt Mohalla, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Panjokhra, Ambala City. Sector 2, Panchkula. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ftpps2607A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 377/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Jagdeep Singh, The Pcit, Village – Raipur, Vs Patiala. Tehsil-Rajpura, Distt. Patiala. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Fsups4290F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.06.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 9(1)(a)

respectively. As pointed out by the Ld. counsel, these proposals have been moved by the concerned officers during arguments of the present appeal before the Tribunal. Under these circumstances, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) cannot be justified. In the case of Smt. Amarjit Kaur vs. ITO (supra

Rakesh Ghanshyambhai Shah, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(2), Vadodara, Gujarat

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

ITA 614/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year : 2013-14 Rakesh Ghanshyambhai Shah Ito, Ward-3(1)(2) 6/Nanji Chembar Vs Vadodara. Bahucharaji Road Karelibaug, Vadodara Pan : Ajeps 2849 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Tej Shah, Ar : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/06/2025

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250Section 69A

First of all, we note that the Registry has flagged the appeal of the assessee being time barred by 328 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. To explain the delay, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of the delay in the form of affidavit. In the application

Kiran Kumar Bussa, Karimnagar vs. ITO., Ward-2, Karimnagar

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

ITA 496/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.496/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Kiran Kumar Bussa Vs. Income Tax Officer Karimnagar Ward – 2 Pan:Ajtpb5696F Karimnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29/10/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac For The A.Y.2016-17. 2. There Is A Delay Of 84 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Supported By An Affidavit.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR

learned CIT (A) after rejecting the request of the adjournment of the assessee and therefore, the assessee could not file the appeal before the Tribunal within the period of limitation as the assessee was not aware about the impugned order till it was verified from the record

Danadjeane, Pondicherry vs. ITO, Ward-1, Pondicherry

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

ITA 1095/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1095/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18 Danadjeane, Income Tax Officer, No.28, Pillaiar Koil Street, Ward-1 Embalam, Pondicherry. Pondichery [Pan: Aqipd2440H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.P.M.Kathir, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT

time to time. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 325 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse, an agriculturist, had actually deposited the appeal fees in June 2024 itself. However

M/S. Bgr Investment Holdings Co. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-1(3), Chennai

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

ITA 1094/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1094/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18 M/S.Bgr Investment Holdings Income Tax Officer, Company Limited, Corp Ward-1(3), No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Chennai. Abhiramapuram, Chennai-600 018. [Pan: Aaacs7054B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.Lavanya, C.A, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Ms.Lavanya, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)

time to time. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 446 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that there were several family disputes giving rise to civil cases and management disputes contributing

Deiveegam Dyers, Salem vs. ACIT, Circle1, Hosur

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

ITA 1083/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1083/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18 Deiveegam Dyers, Assistant Commissioner Of No.1, Greenways Road, Income Tax, Fairlands, Salem, Circle-1, Tamil Nadu-636 016. Hosur. [Pan: Aamfd2415J]

For Appellant: Mr.Sudharshan, Advocate for Mr.T.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 36(1)(va)

time to time. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 107 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse could not file timely appeal on account of death in the family