“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

Jadav Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2911/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2911/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 68

assessee failed to furnish vital information about the transitions and accordingly upheld the addition made by the A.O. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 5. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee at the outset drew our attention

Clover Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 6(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7922/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2012-13 Clover Developers Pvt. Ltd., Dcit-6(1)(1), Flat No. 12, Mumbai. 1St Floor, Plot No. 541/C, Vs. Ashok Building, Edenwalla Road, Matunga, Mumbai-400019. Pan : Aaacg1925B (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri K. Gopal A/W. Shri Akhilesh Deshmukh For Revenue : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal a/wFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 801ASection 80I

claim of deduction u/s. 80-IA of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,05,82,467/-. The assessee thereafter, carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has since decided the matter in favour of the assessee, vide its order

Tabassum Abdulla Inamdar, Mumbai vs. DCIT 42(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6561/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Hirawat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

foreign taxes paid in a country outside India, by way of deduction. The first appeal was dismissed against which assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that return of income was filed within the due date for filing of return

Rajiv Parkash Mahna, Darbhanga, Bihar vs. ITO Ward 69(8) Delhi, ITO Ward Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3971/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalasstt. Year : 2012-13 Rajiv Parkash Mahna, Vs. Ito, Ward 69(8), Rajiv Parkash Mahna Security New Delhi Agency, 1St Floor, Above Manglam Tyre House, Lalbagh Bela More, Darbhanga-846004 Bihar (Pan: Aaapm3288Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

appeared on behalf of the assessee. 3. At the threshold, it is noted that there is delay of 565 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and for this the assessee has filed the petition for condonation wherein, it was stated that the assessee is an individual ... well versed with intricacies of income tax law and was completely unaware of the legal requirement to file the appeal before the Tribunal within a specific time frame. It was further mentioned in the above-said condonation petition that his erstwhile consultant, could not apprise the assessee about the outcome

Rajeev Aggarwal, Faridabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 Faridabad, Faridabad Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1315/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 153ASection 153DSection 69

order dated 21.01.2025 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Against the order of the ld. CIT(A) , the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel has taken a legal ground i.e. related to the approval under section 153D ... then A.O. and the approving authority, (which has been filed much after the granting of the approval and at the stage of second Appeal before the Tribunal), upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the present case in hand is factually distinguishable. In view of the judgement

Rajeev Aggarwal, Faridabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 Faridabad, Faridabad Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1314/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 153ASection 153DSection 69

Amit Goyal HUF, New Delhi vs. The Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

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

ITA 1159/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Agarwal, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2015-16 Amit Goyal Huf, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M-59, Greater Kailash-Ii, Ward 30(1), Civic Centre, New Delhi – 110 048 New Delhi (Pan: Aalha3711R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Respondent By : Shri Krishna Kumar Ramawat, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar Ramawat, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his order dated 31.1.2024 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that Ld. NFAC has erred in confirming the action of the AO in denying the exemption

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Noida vs. Shiv Shakti Constructions, Greater Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 578/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalasstt. Year: 2021-22 Shiv Shakti Constructions Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Incom- A-142, Omaxe, Nri City, Pari Tax Chowk, Greater Noida, Central Circle-Ii, 2Nd Floor, Arto Complex, Gautam Budh Nagar-201306, Uttar Pradesh Sector-33 Noida-201301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aazfs6406R & Asstt. Year: 2021-22 Deputy Commissioner Of Incom- Vs Shiv Shakti Constructions Tax A-142, Omaxe, Nri City, Pari Central Circle-Ii, Chowk, Greater Noida, 2Nd Floor, Arto Complex, Gautam Budh Nagar-201306, Sector-33 Uttar Pradesh Noida-201301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aazfs6406R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Rajinder Kaur, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)

against the total addition of Rs. 31,83,68,998/-, both i.e., the Assessee as well as the Revenue came in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Similarly, the Revenue also came in appeal on estimation of profit rate and for this, it raised Ground No.1 for estimation and Ground

Shiv Shakti Constructions, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 34/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Rajinder Kaur, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)

Chawla Auto Corporation, Rudrapur vs. A C I T Circle-2(1)(1), Haldwani

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 140/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80I

vide order dated 10.07.2025, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Addl./JCIT

Mrs. Dhoomi Devi, Chamoli vs. ITO, W-1(4)4, Srinagar, Chamoli

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 149/DDN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2022-23] Mrs. Dhoomi Devi Vs Ito C/O-Hotel Udai Palace Near . Ward-1(4)4 Narsingh Temple Srignagar, Chamoli Joshimath Chamoli, Uttarakhand-246174 Uttarakhand-246443 Pan-Adkpd6984B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.08.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2021-22/10329482 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For Reason I.E. “Large Investment In Immovable Property As Compared To The Total Income”. The Ao Than Passed The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B On 05.03.2024 At A Total Income Of Inr 2,70,31,224/- As Against The Total Income Declared At Inr 29,45,000/- In The Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54FSection 54F(1)

vide order dated 08.08.2024, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That on facts and in law the impugned order dated 08 August 2024 passed by the Commissioner

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anand vs. Chikhodara Sewa Sahkari Mandali Ltd, Anand

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1571/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalthe Income Tax Officer, Chikhodara Sewa Sahakari Vs. Ward-1, Mandali Ltd., Anand. Nr. Patel Wadi, Opp. Swaminarayan Temple, Chikhodra, Anand-388320. [Pan :Aaaac0897 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. Dr Respondent By: Shri S.N Divatia, With Shri Samir Vora, Ars Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri S.N Divatia, with Shri Samir Vora, ARs

Section 250Section 68

deleted the impugned addition. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition, the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the Ld. DR relied on the assessment order and contended that acceptance of demonetized currency was illegal and therefore

M/S. Kalptaru Cotton Industries, Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-5 Now Ward-1, Patan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1545/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Adjournment application filedFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 68

made u/s 68 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. As per the “Statement of Facts-cum-Synopsis” filed, it was noted that the assessee received unsecured loan of Rs.60,00,000/- from

Nirman, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1509/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalnirman, Vs. 35, Vasantkunj Society, New Dcit, Sharda Mandir Road, Paldi, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380007 Ahmedabad [Pan :Aabfn 7155 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Parin Shah, Ar Respondent Represented By: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

Section 132Section 148Section 250Section 69A

appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.” 8. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer

Kamuthi Solar Power Limited (Merged With Adani Green Energy Twenty -Three Ltd.), Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1242/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalkamuthi Solar Power Limited Vs. Principal Commissioner Of (Merged With Adani Green Income-Tax, Energy Twenty Three Ltd.), Ahmedabad-1 Adani House, Nr. Mithakhali Six Roads, Ahmedabad-380009 [Pan :Aafck 8399 E] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Biren Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order after proper verification. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the Ld. PCIT in the name of Kamuthi Solar

M/S. Bodal Chemicals Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 104/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT (DR)

Section 250Section 35(1)(ii)Section 80Section 801ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

return, but granted relief on some other issues. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ground No. 1 – General Ground This ground is general in nature and requires no separate adjudication. Bodal Chemicals Ltd Vs. DCIT Asst

Income Tax Officer Ward-2 Ahmednagar, Ahmednagar vs. Kanifnath Grmain Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Maldad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2247/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

appeal raised by the appellant are allowed. 6. In the end result, the appeal is allowed.” 4. Dissatisfied, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : “i) On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred

Kankariya Automobiles Pvt Ltd, Ahilyanagar vs. ITO Ward-1, Ahilyanagar

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

ITA 1932/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 36(1)(va)

NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2014-15. 2. There is a delay of 44 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents of the condonation ... Assessing Officer by observing as under: 4 5 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC

Srimad Virat Pothuluri Veerabrahmendra Swamulavari Muttam, Kadapa vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Tirupati

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2287/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1164/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Respondent) (Appellant) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2287/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer, Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Chittoor, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Respondent) (Appellant) निर्धारिती द्वारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate (Through Hybrid Mode) राजस्व द्वारा /Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: | 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 21/08/2023 & 21/10/2025 Respectively For The A.Y.2016-17.

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate

Section 253(5)

A.Y.2016-17. ITA No.1164/Hyd/2024: 2. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 632 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay ... Mattam of the Trust. Accordingly, the Ld. AR submitted that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal and therefore, prayed for the condonation of the delay and admission of the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative

Rajani Chandrakala Ponna, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1666/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1666/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Rajani Chandrakala Vs. Income Tax Officer Ponna, Ward 16(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Amfpp2816A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A.V. Raghuram राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri T Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against By The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit (A) Nfac, Delhi, Dated 17.09.2025 For The A.Y 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Advocate A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri T Sunil Gowtham, Sr. AR

Section 69A

lakhs towards cash deposits into her bank account. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the cash flow statement filed by the assessee submitted that, an amount of Rs.31