“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

Oju Welfare Association, Papumpare vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Exemp, Guwahati

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

ITA 246/GTY/2024[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Mar 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

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

Year: 2024-25 Oju Welfare Association. as ‘the Act’) for AY 2024-25 dated 12.09.2024 and 09.09.2024, respectively. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I.T.A. No.: 246 /GTY/2024 “1. Inadequate Opportunity Provided by CIT(Exemptions) The Appellant respectfully submits that adequate

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Agartala vs. Bidhan Roy, Agartala

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue as well as the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 158/GTY/2024[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 250Section 69A

which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, dated 09.02.2022. 2. The revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts as well ... 158/GTY/2024 & CO No. 01/GTY/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bidhan Roy. authorities not to file appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) before the Tribunal if the tax effect by virtue of relief given by the ld. CIT(Appeals) is less than ₹60,00,000/-. Such order could only

Viraram Choudhary, Calicut vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Kozhikode

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

ITA 106/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Viraram Choudhary .......... Appellant 17/526-G32, Century Mall Opp. New Bus Stand, Calicut 673004 [Pan: Ahlpv0554G] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward 1(4), Kozhikode Appellant By: Shri Rajesh Cherumanalil, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Cherumanalil, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 69

appeal for non-prosecution as well as on merits and confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. I heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record

Sea Castle An Ayurvedic and Leisure Hotel(Hill & Sea View Ayurvedic Beach Resort), Thiruvananthapuram vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Range I, Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 988/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Krishna K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 40Section 43B

before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 6. At the outset I find that there is a delay of 588 days in filing the appeal

Sea Castle An Ayurvedic and Leisure Hotel(Hill & Sea View Ayurvedic Beach Resort), Thiruvananthapuram vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Range I, Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 987/COCH/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Krishna K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 40Section 43B

Sakkeena Abdul Karim, Kannur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Kannur

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

ITA 908/COCH/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sakkeena Abdul Karim .......... Appellant Palliath Memprom, Chokli, Kannur 670692 [Pan: Bqqpa6401A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Kannur .......... Respondent

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69

filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. I heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. The only

Norbet Deilip Elavunkalpeter, Kochi vs. Income Tax Officer, Kochi

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

ITA 1164/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Norbet Deilip Elavunkalpeter .......... Appellant Elavungal House, Mahakvi Vailoppilli Road, Palarivattom, Ernakulam 682025 [Pan: Aagpe8491B] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Non-Corporate Ward-2(1), Kochi

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. I find that there is a delay in filing the present appeal by 112 days. The appellant

Parmjeet Singh Mogla, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Mohali

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 853/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr.DR

Section 148

Hearing : 04.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 15.06.2024 passed for assessment year ... assessee. 5. This appeal was listed for hearing on 13.01.2025 and the Bench has passed the following order : “The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 15.06.2024 passed for assessment year 2016-17. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee

Presidency Hospitality Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2113/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 40A(3)

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, but vide application dated ‘Nil”, which was received by the Registry

Liquidhub Analytics Pvt. Ltd. (Now Merged With Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd), Pune vs. NFAC, Pune

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

ITA 1952/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Smt Nilu Jaggi, CIT

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

upheld the action of the AO / TPO. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the AO / TPO / DRP, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: That on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law; Legal Grounds 1. The impugned order

The Erode District Co-Operative Union, Erode vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1) Erode, Erode

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

ITA 3277/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: the Id.CIT(A). The assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) regarding interest income from investments in co-operative banks was also denied by the Id/CIT(A) for the reason that the deduction was inadmissible since no specific claim had been in the return, citing the section 80A(5) of the Act. The Id. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Id. Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT

Section 119Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80A(5)Section 80P(2)(d)

section 80A(5) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the ld. Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Before us, the ld.counsel submitted that the ld.CIT(A) erred in denying the benefit of deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) regarding interest

Senniappan Mani, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Tiruppur

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3230/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3230/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Senniappan Mani, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.7, Sivasakthi Nagar, Ward 2(1) 1St Street, K T C Main Road, Tirupur. Parappalayam, Tirupur 641 604. [Pan: Bbnpm 7005C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Senthil Kumar, Advocate Virtual, Erode ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 01.02.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 232 Days In Filing The Appeal. Considering The Period Of Delay & Reasons Stated In Condonation Affidavit Given By The Assessee, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment Was Completed U/S 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Wherein Ao Had Made Addition Of Rs.1,00,98,950/- U/S 69 On Account Of Unexplained Investment & Rs.1,11,66,838/- U/S 69A On Account Of Unexplained Money. Assessee Further Challenged The Order Of Assessment U/S 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Before The Ld.Cit(A) Who Did Not Admit The Appeal Of The Assessee For The Reason That The Assessee Has Not Paid An Amount Equal To The Amount Of Advance Tax Which Was Payable In The Light Of The Mandatory Provision Of Section 249(4)(B) Of The Act. The Assessee Is Now In Appeal Before The Tribunal With The Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Shri. Senthil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT

Section 147Section 207Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)Section 69Section 69A

which was payable in the light of the mandatory provision of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The Assessee is now in appeal before the tribunal with the following grounds:- ‘’1) The Impugned Order is bad, erroneous and unsustainable in law. 2) The learned First Appellate Authority erred

Kamaraj Selvaraj, Chennai vs. Income Tax Office, Ncw-19(3), Chennai

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

ITA 3117/CHNY/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sendamarai Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69

claim of ₹.35,78,051/- and confirmed the addition to an extent of ₹.14,78,051/-. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee is engaged in small time business of selling eggs

Talentpro India Hr Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2722/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2721 & 2722/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Talentpro India Hr Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 30, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Income Tax, Chennai 600 008. Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aabcp9823A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.A. (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunathaboth The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different But Identical Orders Of The Addl/Jcit(A), Thiruvanantpuram Both Dated 28.08.2024 For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20. 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 Hear The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.A. (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

Others dated 12.10.2022, the first appellate authority confirmed the disallowances made by the CPC, Bengaluru. 5. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal for both the assessment years under consideration. 6. The ld. AR Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.A., by reiterating the submissions as made before

Talent Pro India Hr Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Circle 3(1), Corporate Chennai, Chennai

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

ITA 2721/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.A. (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

Automatic It Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National E-Assessment Centre Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 6293/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Mihit Naniwadekar, Ld. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Sinha, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 201Section 250Section 40

under section 40(a)(ia). 5 M/s. Automatic IT Services Private Limited 24. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. The ld. AR submitted that in the present case, it is not in dispute that Form

Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Kalyan, Rani Mansion, Second Floor, Murbad Road vs. Navjeevan Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Kalyan, Thankar Pada, Kalyan West

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is rejected

ITA 5000/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 5000/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) Ito, Ward 3(1), Kalyan V/S. Navjeevan Sahakari 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, बिधम Patpedhi Maryadit, Kalyan Murbad Road, Kalyan 14-15, Panchdhara West, Maharashtra-421301 Apartments, Thankar Pada, Kalyan (West)-421301 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam5330Q Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri V. G. GindeFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Pande

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

allowed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 10.06.2024. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2012-13 Navjeevan Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Kalyan 5. Ground No. 1 Disallowance of deduction ... allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5.3 Aggrieved with the order of ld. CIT(A), the revenue has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, Ld. AR has argued that this issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank

Dynamic Transmission Ltd., Rohtak vs. ACIT, Circle, Rohtak

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 327/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraacit Vs. Vandana Tyagi Central Circle-1 Flat No. 305, Plot No. 30, 7Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, Sahita Apartment, Sector-4, Udyogvihar, Phase-V, Dwarka, New Delhi Gurgaon Haryana Pan: Ahcpt8491P

order dated 28/11/2022, dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee and as per the records, the said Sh. Atul Tyagi has not preferred any Appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The submission made by the Ld. Department's Representative is placed on record. Considering the fact that the substantial addition made

Mrinal Das, Baksa vs. ITO, Ward - Barpeta Road, Barpeta

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

ITA 255/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati24 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 250Section 40A(3)Section 44ASection 69A

Mrinal Das. which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 147 of the Act, dated 01.03.2023. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the learned CIT(A) is not justified in assessing business income @ 15% of total turnover ... also the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. 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. DR stated that the nature of business

Medinnova Systems Private Limited, Surat vs. DCIT Circle 2(1)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1241/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1241/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Medinnova Systems Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ (Previously Known Soma Tech. Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Surat, Vs. Pvt. Ltd.) 301, Soham House, Current Jurisdiction Ward- Opp. St Xaviers School, Ghod 2(1)(1), Vadodara, Aaykar Dod Road, Surat-395 007 Bhavan, Race Course, Circle, Vadodara-390 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aakcs 5265 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 15/01/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/03/2025

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

addition made by AO u/s 68 of the Act. 7. Further aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, Ld.AR of the assessee filed paper book and submitted that the Department had added the impugned amount by holding that