“ appeal before the tribunal ”

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT

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.

223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court

2,040

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders

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.

349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court

956

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT

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.

389 ITR 326 · 2016 · High Court

241

Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar

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.

1 SCC 591 · 1985 · Reported

225

392 ITR 244 · 2017 · High Court

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

202

CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co Ltd.

The Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days.

81 ITR 303 · 1971 · High Court

202

Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT

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.

317 ITR 433 · 2009 · High Court

202

ITA 1980/KOL/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 May 2025

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

Kalyan, V. Nagar, Purulia vs. It(Exemptions), 10B, Middleton Row (6Th Floor)

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(ii)Section 80G(5)(vi)

registration u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 28.08.2024. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I.T.A. No.: 1980/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: N.A. Kalyan. “1) That the impugned Order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income ... Year: N.A. Kalyan. therefore, the application was treated as non-maintainable and the same was rejected. Against this rejection, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal which was decided vide order dated 10.07.2024 in which the following directions were given to the Ld. CIT (Exemption): “4. We have perused

Access India Impex Centre Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 2462/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumara.Yr. : 2012-13 Access India Impex Centre Pvt Vs. Ito, Ward 1(3), Ltd., C.R. Building, 602, Naurang House, New Delhi 21, Kasturba Marg, New Delhi – 110 001 (Pan: Aadca4236A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Rasik Makkar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

noted that the appeal is time barred by 412 days. In this regard, Ld. AR has submitted that delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is due to illness of Director’s mother of the assessee company, who was also the Director of the Company and was severally ... hearing both the sides and perusing the records, we find that reasonable cause has been attributed to the assessee in filing the belated appeal before the Tribunal, hence, in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the appeal before the appeal deserve to be condoned. We hold and direct

Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Ltu-1, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2868/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs.Samantha Mullamudi

ITA 2867/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2016-17

sustained the addition made u/s.14A r.w.r 8D of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the CIT(A) order, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has its own sufficient interest free funds and not out of borrowed funds

Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Ltu-1, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs.Samantha Mullamudi

ITA 2866/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Ltu-1, Chennai

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2865, 2866, 2867 & 2868/Chny/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2018-19) M/S. Carborundum Universal Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Limited, No. 43, Vi Floor, Parry House Moore Street,Chennai Gpo Parrys, – 600 001. Pan: Aaacc-2474-P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Large Taxpayer Unit-1, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mrs.Samantha Mullamudi, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकी तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)]All Dated10.09.2024 For Assessment Years 2010-11, 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2018-19.Since The Facts & Issues Are Common In These Appeals, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs.Samantha Mullamudi

ITA 2865/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2010-11

Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Ltu-1, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs.Samantha Mullamudi

ITA 2572/BANG/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2025AY 2023-24

Baderunnisa, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Mohammad Taher Shaikh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 143(1)Section 194ISection 199

This ground of appeal is therefore, dismissed. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The learned AR before me filed paper book running from pages 1 to 81 and inter alia submitted that the Deputy Director

Pancham Pal, Patna vs. I.T.O, Ward- 6 (4), Patna

ITA 7/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. I.T.A. No.: 7/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Pancham Pal. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal and upholding the order

Mansi Rinkeshkumar Rathod, Surat vs. ITO, TDS, Ward-1, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 699/SRT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.699/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Physical Hearing) Mansi Rinkeshkumar Rathod, Vs. Tds, Cpc, Ayakar Bhawan, 4-A/2, Yogi Krupa Society, New Sector – 3, Up – 201010. Civil Road, Surat - 395007 Jurisdiction: Tds, Ward – 1, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ciapr0584A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/05/2025

Section 200Section 200ASection 201Section 234ESection 250

Rashmikant Kundalia vs. UOI, (2015) 54 taxmann.com 200 (Bombay). 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the appellant has filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that interest was charged for short payment and late filing u/s 234E

Chintan Navinchandra Shah, Bhavnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhavnagar

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

ITA 146/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year :2017-18 Chintan Navinchandra Shah Ito, Ward-1(1) Plot No.726-C Vs Bhavnagar. Behind Patel Park Muni Dairy Bhavnagar 364 001 Pan : Bdcps 5781 C (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri B.R. Popat, Ar : Smt.Bhavnaga Gupta Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2045 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Popat, AR

Section 250

outset, it is noted that the Registry had flagged the instant appeal as time-barred by 517 days. The assessee has presented his appeal before the Tribunal on 21.1.2025. In response to the defective notice issued by the Registry of the Tribunal, the assessee by letter dated 27.1.2025 explaining ... authority uploaded the impugned order in its portal for the time first time only on 7.1.2025, and immediately thereafter, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal on 21st January, 2025, and therefore, there was no delay on the part of the assessee. The contents of the letter of the assessee

Satyajit Pravinsinh Kumpawat, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 695/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarshri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Parin S. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Agal, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Kumpawat Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 3– 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find that the Assessing Officer made an addition

Rajendrakumar Chhanalal Shah, Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Patan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1865/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr DR

Section 133(6)Section 250

confirming the disallowance @ 2% of the alleged bogus purchases of Rs.12,61,68,630/-, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find that the reason for making the impugned addition was that

Uttamkumar Tukaram Patil, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

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

ITA 2693/PUN/2024[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 May 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2693/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 143(1)Section 250

order dated 28.03.2021 passed u/s.143(1) of the Act. 2. Registry informed that there is delay of about 48 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. An affidavit explaining the delay has been filed by the assessee stating the following reasons: “1. That, the orders of the Learned Commissioner ... cause’ which prevented the assessee in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, the delay of 48 days occurred in preferring the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji

Watershed Organisation Trust, Ahmednagar vs. ACIT Exemption Circle, Aurangabad

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

ITA 1976/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 May 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri P.D. KudvaFor Respondent: Shri Mallikarjun Utture

Section 10Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

filed any submission towards the same. Therefore, the ground is found to be academic in nature." 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. At the outset, the Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that

Mahadev Choudhary, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 99/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri A.V.RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala

ITA 105/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 May 2025AY 2020-21

accepting the payment of cash. 3. At the outset, it is seen that there is a delay of 25 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.103 - 105/Hyd/2025. The assessee has filed condonation petition in all these cases with an affidavit, explaining the reasons for such delay

Leela Ram Choudhary, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri A.V.RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala

ITA 104/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 May 2025AY 2018-19

Leela Ram Choudhary, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.103-105/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21) Leela Ram Choudhary Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax Central Circle-2(1) [Pan :Ahapc0813E] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.99/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Mahadev Choudhary Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax Central Circle-2(1) [Pan : Aprpc4388M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.100/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Ashok Kumar Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax Central Circle-2(1) [Pan :Hnypk3276C] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.V.Raghuram, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/05/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 02/05/2025 Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri A.V.RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala

ITA 103/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 May 2025AY 2017-18

accepting the payment of cash. 3. At the outset, it is seen that there is a delay of 25 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.103 – 105/Hyd/2025. The assessee has filed condonation petition in all these cases with an affidavit, explaining the reasons for such delay

Leela Ram Choudhary, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri A.V.RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala

ITA 100/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 May 2025AY 2019-20

Ashok Kumar, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri A.V.RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala