← 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

Maharaj Jagat Singh Medical Relief Society, Amritsar vs. Commissioner Income Tax (Exemptions) Chandigarh, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1706/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Atul Mandhar, Advocate andFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg, CIT DR
Section 12A

Bhushan Garg, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 29.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 10.02.2026 HYBRID HEARING ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [in short ‘the CIT (E)’] dated 25.11.2025 passed for assessment year

Lahoti Properties and Infrabuildcon Venture, Latur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Nanded

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

ITA 2564/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2022-23 Lahoti Properties & Infrabuildcon Venture Ito, Ward 1, Lahoti Compound, Dayaram Road, Hatte Vs. Nanded Road, Latur S.O., Latur – 413512 Pan: Aadfl9693F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Chandra Vijay, Cit Date Of Hearing : 10-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-02-2026

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 4Section 68

case of M/s. Chhabra Land and Housing Ltd. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that due to some miscommunication the assessee could not represent either before

Built Up, Pune vs. ADIT, Banglore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2531/PUN/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2019-20 Built Up Adit, Cpc, Bangalore 1, Samda Apartment, Vs. Dr Ketkar Margs, Ghodke Chowk, Pune – 411004 Pan: Aaefb6432D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V L JainFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80I

deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not providing a proper opportunity of hearing

Navalmal Firodia Memorial Hospital Trust, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 1(2), Pune

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

ITA 2460/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: the learned CIT(A), the same has neither been taken note of or distinguished in any manner. Not following the binding Judicial precedent of the Jurisdictional ITAT Pune is gross impropriety in law. Ground No. 2: The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Shrenik GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sinha (Virtual)
Section 11Section 11(2)(a)Section 11(3)Section 11(3)(c)Section 12ASection 143(1)

assessee and confirmed the intimation order passed by CPC. 5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the assessee trust has accumulated Rs.6 ... only in AY 2014-15 only. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 9. As we have already noticed, the period of 5 years for spending the accumulated surplus for AY 2008-09 "or in the year immediately following

Suhas Digambar Chinchkar, Pune vs. CIT(A) & NFAC, New Delhi

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

ITA 1651/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1651/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Suhas Digambar Chinchkar, Vs. Ito, National Faceless B- 1005, Bhoomi Allium, Assessment Centre, Near Kokne Chowk, Delhi. Rahatni, Pune- 411017. Pan : Afspc4270R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ritvik Vatsyayan Revenue By : Shri Milind Debaje (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.06.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of ₹5,00,000 Under Section 69 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Without Providing The Appellant An Opportunity To Rebut Or Cross-Examine The Third- Party Material Used Against Him. The Addition Is Based On A Document Allegedly Impounded During A Survey On M/S Swastik

For Appellant: Shri Ritvik VatsyayanFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje (Virtual)
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 44ASection 69

/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard Ld. counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the case laws furnished by the assessee

Jalpaiguri Zilla Regulated Market Committee, Jalpaiguri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Jalpaiguri

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

ITA 2796/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

delay in filing the appeal. However, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, if any, in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) was passed on 19.09.2025 and the appeal has been filed on 21.11.2025. The reasons for the delay ... sufficient cause for the delay, the delay, if any, is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “Ground 1: The penalty order u/s 271B is bad in law as mandatory conditions for levy

Gaurav Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2306/KOL/2025[205-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50DSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(viia)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2015-16 dated 15.09.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC was wrong in confirming the action of the Assessing ... addition under section 50D of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR submitted that the only issue for consideration is whether

Patton International Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 7(1), Kolkata

ITA 1045/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 14ASection 250

common assessee, therefore, they are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 1044/KOL/2025; AY 2019-20: “1. The CIT (A) (NFAC) erred by not allowing

Patton International Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 7(1), Kolkata

ITA 1044/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 14ASection 250

common assessee, therefore, they are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 1044/KOL/2025; AY 2019-20: “1. The CIT (A) (NFAC) erred by not allowing

Goutam Chand Sandeep Pagariya, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-8(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2927/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2927/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr.K.P. Gangi Reddi, C.A ()For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 194CSection 250Section 40Section 68Section 69C

appeal was dismissed ex-parte by Goutam Chand Sandeep Pagariya :- 3 -: the CIT(A). The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee with regard to the addition u/s. 69C of the Act towards transactions

Abraham Kurian, Dindigul vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dindigul

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

ITA 2775/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2775/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. A. Venkatesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 69A

appeal stating that the assessee has not discharged the onus of proving the source by submitting satisfactory documentary evidences. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the source for the deposit

Income Tax Officer-16(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rafeeq Peermohideen, Mumbai

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

ITA 7702/MUM/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250Section 268ASection 44ASection 69

stated therein that the Revenue itself has computed the tax effect at Rs. 54,66,284/-. The monetary limit prescribed for filing appeal before the Tribunal as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 issued under section 268A of the Act is Rs. 60,00,000/-. It was further contended ... Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17/09/2024 issued under section 268A of the Act prescribes a monetary limit of Rs. 60,00,000/- for filing appeals before the Tribunal. The tax effect in the present case, as computed by the 5 ITA No. 7702/Mum/2025 Rafeeq Peermohideen Revenue itself

DCIT Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Steel Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6471/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardcit Circle-2(3)(1) Tata Steel Limited 552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bombay House, 24, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Homi Mody Street, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai, Gpo, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb1247M (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Assessee By Ms. Jasmin Amalasadvala, Ld. Ar Date Of Hearing 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.02.2026

Section 115JSection 131Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 250Section 268ASection 68

that the tax effect involved in the present appeal is Rs. 21,76,219/-, which is below the monetary limit prescribed for filing appeal before the Tribunal. 11. The principal addition of Rs. 36,82,529/- under section 68 has been sustained by the CIT(A). The Revenue

Satender Kumar, Sarita Vihar vs. Income Tax Officer, Civic Centre

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 229/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 229/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Satender Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, 56, Ali Village, Sarita Vihar, Ward-28(1), New Delhi-110076 New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afxpk4995C Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2020-21 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1082434098(1) Dated 10.11.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

afresh after making requisite enquiries and proper verification with regard to taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest

Braham Dutt Vashist, Gurgaon vs. ITO-Ward -1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 170/DEL/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 170/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Braham Dutt Vashist, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Ca M. R. Sahu, Ward-1(3), H. No. 651, 1St Floor, Sector-10A, Gurgaon-122001 Near G. D. Goenka Public School, Gurgaon-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Affpv0127D Assessee By: Sh. M. R. Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1083989454(1) Dated 23.12.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. M. R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

afresh after making requisite enquiries and proper verification with regard to taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest

Ramavtar, Rewari vs. ITO, Rewari

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 140/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Ramavtar, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Anu Jain & Company, Ward-1(3), 272-R, First Floor, Near Palika Near Hindu High School, Complex, Model Town, Rewari, Model Town, Rewari, Haryana-123401 Haryana-123401 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Apdpa0001R Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2020-21 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1083470019(1) Dated 09.12.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

afresh after making requisite enquiries and proper verification with regard to taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest

Mohan Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward 17(3), Delhi

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

ITA 6381/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, Advocate, Ms. Mansi JainFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 48Section 69A

dated 04.08.2025 whereby relief on account of addition made in respect of unsecured loan was granted. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal, challenging the addition or Rs. 33,50,000/- u/s 69A made on account of cash deposits in the bank accounts and disallowance

Rajinder Singh M/S Rajinder Singh and Sons Tehsil Makhanpur Bsinah Jammu, Jammu vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2) Jammu Aayakar Bhawan Rail Head Complex Panama Chowk Jammu, Jammu

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

ITA 263/ASR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 263/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajinder Singh, M/S Rajinder Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), Singh & Sons, Tehsil Jammu & Kashmir. Makhanpur, Bishnah, Jammu. [Pan:-Bdups0545L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250

Nitin Gupta (partner), has declared that the order of the Ld. CIT (A) has been passed on 22 July, 2023, and the appeal before the tribunal which was supposed to have been filed within sixty days, could not be filed because he has not accessed the e-proceedings portal

Satyam Educational and Social Enhancement Trust, Katihar vs. ITO Exemption Ward Bhagalpur, Bhagalpur

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

ITA 529/PAT/2025[25-26]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(vi)

registration u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 26.09.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed ... Satyam Educational and Social Enhancement Trust. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT (Exemption), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. It was submitted by Ld. AR that the assessee had sought for regular

Kunkulagunta Mallikarjuna Rao, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada

Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the view of the CIT(A), who, in my view, in the absence of any plausible explanation of the assessee regarding the delay involved in filing of the appeal, had r...

ITA 579/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 69

result the appeal is dismissed.” 5. The assessee, aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), has carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Shri B. Seshagiri Rao, Advocate, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short Ld.AR) for the assessee, at the threshold of the hearing of the appeal submitted