“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

Mahesh Dyeing and Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 281/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.281/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Mahesh Dyeing & Printing Mills Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 1(1)(1), 104, 105, 107 Shivanand Nagar Surat Ind. Estate, Village – Tati Thaiya, Surat – 394221, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcm9282E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2025

Section 250Section 68

Shri Dhiraj T. Rathi, one of the shareholders of the assessee-company. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee at the ITA No.281/SRT/2023/AY.2014-15 Mahesh Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. outset submitted that remand

Income Tax Officer, Bodhi Tower vs. Kumar Builders Project Pune Private Limited, Bund Garden

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

ITA 199/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 80ISection 80P

claim the benefit of carry forward of loss. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: a. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. JT.CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating

Rahul Nemgonda Patil, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ichalkaranji

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

ITA 2522/PUN/2024[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2025

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68

therefore, dismissed. 6. The ground of appeal No. 2 is general in nature and needs no adjudication.” Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is not challenging the addition

Income Tax Officer Ward 6(3), Pune vs. Janata Automobiles, Pune

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

ITA 1779/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

hereby deleted.” 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition made

Osuran Rajamanickam, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward-2, Kancheepuram

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

ITA 871/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.871/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18 Osuran Rajamanickam, Income Tax Officer, No.1/A, Magalai Street, Ward-2, Mudichur Road , Old Perungalathur, Kanchipuram. Chennai-600 063. [Pan: Bzbpr0488N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.Joshita Jothi, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gautham S.Mukundan, Irs सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Ms.Joshita Jothi, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.Gautham S.Mukundan, IRS

time to time. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 697 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has ITA No. 871 /Chny/2025 pleaded that the assesse is a small time business man and an uneducated

Sadish Paul, Pondicherry vs. DCIT, Ward-1, Puducherry

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 787/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.787/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18 Sadish Paul, Deputy Commissioner Of Income No.19, First Cross, Priyadarshini Nagar, Tax, Gorimedu, Circle-1, Pondicherry-605006 Pondicherry. [Pan: Awxpp6586H) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N.V.Krishnan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11 .06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri N.V.Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(vi)Section 154

time to time. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 673 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse had not received any physical copy of the order and that

M/S. Rmz Infinity (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. PCIT-4, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 511/CHNY/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.511/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/S.Rmz Infinity(Chennai) Pvt. Ltd, The Principal Commissioner Of No.110, Mount Poonamallee Road, Income Tax-4, Porur, Porur S.O, Circle-1, Ltu, Kanchipuram Dist, Chennai Tamil Nadu-600 116. [Pan: Aaacd2287R]

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 263

PCIT was wrong. 3.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 51 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse was exposed to the order u/s 263 dated 28.10.2024 which was linked

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle-4, Coimbatore vs. The Tudiyalur Co-Operative Agricultural Services Limited, Coimbatore

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

ITA 468/CHNY/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 468/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 The Dcit, The Tudiyalur Co-Operative Non-Corporate Circle – 4, Vs. Agricultural Services Ltd., Coimbatore. No.1, Tudiyalur Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore – 641 042. Pan: Aaaat 3838L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jai V Vairav, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.06.2025

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri Jai V Vairav, CA

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(4)

Assessment Year is 2018-19. 2. The Department has filed a condonation application for condoning the delay of 8 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. However on perusal of records, we find that the appeal has been filed within the due date prescribed (appeal filed ... deleted and appeal of the appellant is allowed.” 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Department has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The grounds raised read as follows:- 1. The learnt CIT(A) erred in not considering the issue that the assessee has not complied

M/S. Castlewick Fze, Dubai vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(1), Chennai

ITA 459/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 148Section 201Section 201(1)Section 234ASection 9(1)(vii)

directions dated 29.11.2024, the impugned final assessment order was passed on 06.12.2024. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds:- Grounds of Appeal The grounds of appeal listed below are without prejudice to one another

Late Shri Muthuvel Kalathadi Muthu, L/H. Smt. Karpagavalli, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-22(2), Tambaram

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1363/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1363/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 & Sa No.55/Chny/2025 [In Ita No.1363/Chny/2025]

For Appellant: Shri Vishwa Padmanabhan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, JCIT

Section 144Section 250

outstanding demand, she came to know about the pending income-tax proceedings. Subsequently, she contacted her tax consultant and took steps to file appeal before the Tribunal. It was stated that the assessee’s wife had no knowledge about income tax matters nor she had occasion to access her husband ... genuine cause. On perusal of the reasons stated, we find there is sufficient reasons for delay in ITA No.1363/CHNY/2025 & SA No.55/CHNY/2025 filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 3. At the very outset

Good Shepherd Holistic Educational Trust, Trichy vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Trichy

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

ITA 3105/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3105/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 Good Shepherd Holistic The Income Tax Officer, Educational Trust, Vs. Ward 1(1), Plot No.452, Usman Ali Nagar, Trichy. Kk Nagar, Trichy – 620 021. Pan: Aactg 1957E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, JCIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57

circumstances beyond the control of the assessee on account of unavoidable circumstances and pleaded for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. On perusal of the same, we find there is sufficient reason for delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, we condone the delay ... assessee on these issues are dismissed.” 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR for the assessee filed a paper-book enclosing therein Form 10A filed by the assessee, the return of income filed for the assessment

Income Tax Officer, Nungambakkam, Chennai vs. Arrowline Organic Products Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 2624/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2624/Chny/2024 Assessment Years: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Arrowline Organic Products Pvt. Ltd. No.1/6, 1St Floor, Corporate Ward-1(1) Chennai. Bishop Wallers Avenue(South), Cit Colony, Mylapore, Chennai- 600 004. [Pan: Aanca4194K]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G.Nandha Kumar, CIT

Section 68

time to time. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 8 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal by the Revenue. In its affidavit the Revenue has pleaded that the Ld.AO was ceased with pressing judicial matters contributing to the impugned

Prem Prakash Gupta, Bangalore vs. ITO, Ward-6(2)(2), Bangalore

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed as not admitted

ITA 53/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

Page 7 of 13 which was stated to be received by the assessee also on 13.10.2023. The assessee should have filed appeal before the Tribunal within 2 months from the end of the month in which the order sought to be filed against is communicated to the assessee. In this

Incline Realty Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

ITA 112/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda Matkari

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

offered by the appellant Accordingly, this ground of appeal is DISMISSED” (Emphasis Supplied) 9. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced at Paragraph 2 above. 10. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the material on record. 11. During

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-25, New Delhi, Delhi vs. Honey Arora, Delhi

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 918/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleita No. 915/Del/2025 (Ay 2012-13) Ita No. 917/Del/2025 (Ay 2014-15) & Acit, Central Circle-25, Vs. Honey Arora, A-101, 4Th Floor, Delhi Room No. 317, 3Rd Floor, Ara Shardapuri Centre, Jhandewalan Ramesh Nagar, Extension, Delhi – 55 Delhi – 15 (Pan: Arnpa8541J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. Dr. Respondent By : Sh. Amit Kumar Gupta, Adv. Date Of Hearing 08.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.06.2025

For Appellant: Sh. Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar Gupta, Adv

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

assessment as annulled and allowed the appeal of the assesse. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts of the case. Ld. I find Ld. CIT(A) has discussed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-25, New Delhi, Delhi vs. Honey Arora, Delhi

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 917/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar Gupta, Adv

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-25, New Delhi, Delhi vs. Honey Arora, Delhi

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 916/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar Gupta, Adv

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-25, New Delhi, Delhi vs. Honey Arora, Delhi

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 915/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar Gupta, Adv

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-25, New Delhi, Delhi vs. Honey Arora, Delhi

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 914/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar Gupta, Adv

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

Neha Singh, New Delhi vs. Assessing Officer, Civic Centre, New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 874/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2017-18 Neha Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, D-119, 3Rd Floor, Sarita Vihar, Ward 72(1), Delhi New Delhi – 110 076 (Pan: Cksps4013F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sudarshan Roy, Adv. & Shri Ujjawal Garg, Ar Respondent By : Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 08.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.06.2025 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Emanating From The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi In Appeal No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069313809(1) Dated 01.10.2024 Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Heard Both The Sides & Perused The Records. 3. At The Threshold, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 48 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal & During The Hearing, It Is Observed That Reasonable Cause Has Been Attributed To The Assessee For Filing The Belated Appeal. Hence, I Condone The Delay In Dispute & Proceed Further. 4. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Ao Made The Addition Of Rs.28,80,000/- By Noting That Assessee Deposited Cash In Bank Account During Demonetization Period From Undisclosed Sources, As The Sources Were Neither Properly Explained, The Onus Is On The Assessee’S To Prove That The Cash Deposits, Hence, Ao Added The Same To The Income Of The Assessee As Income From Undisclosed Sources & The Same Was Taxed U/S. 115Bbe @ 60%. However, In Appeal, Ld. First Appellate Authority Sustained The Addition. Against The Above, Assessee Appealed Before The Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri Sudarshan Roy, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. DR

Section 115B

sides and perused the records. 3. At the threshold, it is noted that there is a delay of 48 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and during the hearing, it is observed that reasonable cause has been attributed to the assessee for filing the belated appeal. Hence ... sources and the same was taxed u/s. 115BBE @ 60%. However, in appeal, Ld. First Appellate Authority sustained the addition. Against the above, assessee appealed before the Tribunal. 5. Upon careful consideration, I note that it was the contention of the assessee before the AO, that the addition made