← 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

ITO, Ward-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Arka Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 58/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.58/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer Vs. Arka Properties (P) Ltd Ward 1 (1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafca7411H (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M. Narmada, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate H Srinivasulu, सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated, 23/11/2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Y. 2015-16. 2. There Is A Delay Of 1 Day By The Revenue In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal & The Revenue Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Cause Of Delay. We Have Heard The Learned Dr As Well As The Learned Ar On The Condonation Of Delay. The Learned Ar Has Not Objected For Condonation Of Delay Of One Day In Filing

For Appellant: Advocate H SrinivasuluFor Respondent: : Smt. M. Narmada, CIT(DR)
Section 148Section 45

NFAC Delhi, for the A.Y. 2015-16. 2. There is a delay of 1 day by the Revenue in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and the Revenue has filed an affidavit explaining the cause of delay. We have heard the learned DR as well as the learned

Alagarsamy, Dindigul vs. DCIT, Ward-1, Dindigul

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

ITA 315/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 315/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Alagarsamy, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 1, Anumantharayan Kottai, Income Tax, Dindigul – 624 001, Ward -1, Tamil Nadu. Dindigul. [Pan: Biqpa-6564-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओर से/ Appellant By : Shri A.G. Sathyanarayana Advocate ""थ"की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated 22.06.2024 Pertains To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 153 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really Prevented In :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri A.G. Sathyanarayana AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 250Section 69A

various hearing notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). On :-3-: ITA. No: 315/Chny/2025 being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR Shri A.G. Sathyanarayana, Advocate submits that non- response to the hearing notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) is neither

Rahul Jesmin Seth, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-22(5), Tambaram

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

ITA 307/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 307/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rahul Jesmin Seth, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Flat No. Ef, 15Th Floor, Sapphire Non Corporate Ward –22(5), Block K, Olympia Opaline No. 33, Tambaram, Chennai. Omr Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Navallur, Chennai 603 103. [Pan: Bhsps-7395-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated 23.12.2024 Pertains To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 18 Grounds Of Appeal, Amongst Which, Besides Challenging The Exparte Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), The Assessee Also Agitated That The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Confirming The Additions Of ₹.27,31,000/- Being The Cash Deposits Made In Sbns During The Demonetization Period

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 10Section 10(14)(ii)Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 17(2)Section 250Section 69

various hearing notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) dated 14.02.2024, 19.07.2024, 27.08.2024 & 13.12.2024. On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld. AR Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate, submits that non-response to the hearing notices issued

Revathikumar Sudha, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncw-19(1), Chennai

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 305/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 304 & 305/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Revathikumar Sudha, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 29, 3Rd Main Road, Thilaiganga Income Tax, Nagar, Chennai 600 061. Non Corporate Ward –19(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aztps-8926-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Both Dated 12.12.2024 Pertains To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Towards Quantum Addition As Well As Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ISection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

various hearing notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) dated 31.05.2024, 06.06.2024 & 02.07.2024. On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. :-4-: ITA. Nos: 304 & 305/Chny/2025 6. The ld. AR Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate, drew our attention to the printout of e-portal website

Revathikumar Sudha, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncw-19(1, Chennai

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 304/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 304 & 305/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Revathikumar Sudha, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 29, 3Rd Main Road, Thilaiganga Income Tax, Nagar, Chennai 600 061. Non Corporate Ward –19(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aztps-8926-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Both Dated 12.12.2024 Pertains To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Towards Quantum Addition As Well As Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ISection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

various hearing notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) dated 31.05.2024, 06.06.2024 & 02.07.2024. On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. :-4-: ITA. Nos: 304 & 305/Chny/2025 6. The ld. AR Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate, drew our attention to the printout of e-portal website

Kunguman Ganeshan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-11(3), Chennai

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

ITA 295/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 295/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kunguman Ganeshan, Income Tax Officer, 22/59, Mohammed Hussain Street, Vs. Non Corporate Ward -11(3), Royapettah S.O., Royapettah, Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 014. [Pan: Bgqpg-5503-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing 18.03.2025 : घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 06.11.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2017-18 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69A

assessee, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 5. On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld. AR Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate, submits that the ld. CIT(A) erroneously sustained the addition being the entire cash deposits

R. Thanabalan, Tuticorin vs. ITO, Ward-5, Thoothukudi

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

ITA 256/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 256/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 R. Thanabalan, Income Tax Officer, 2F/1575, P & T Colony, Vs. Ward -5, Tuticorin 628 008. Tuticorin 628 001. [Pan: Aabpt-4814-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 18.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 19.11.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2013-14 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 44A

submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The ld. AR Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate submits that though the assessee filed details of bank statements, ledger account, etc. before

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Ramco Cements Limited, Rajapalayam

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3234/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3234 & 3059/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2015-16 The Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Vs. Ramco Cements Limited, Of Income Tax, Ramamandiram, Rajapalayam, Corporate Circle 2, Virudhunagar District – 626 117, Madurai. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aabcm8375L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Muralidhar, F.C.A. & Shri J. Prabhakar, F.C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 17.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2011-12 & Order Dated 27.09.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) – 16, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Since Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CiTFor Respondent: Shri S. Muralidhar, F.C.A. &

supra), the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. Having heard both the parties, we note that the ld. CIT(A) discussed the issue in para 4.2 of the impugned order, wherein