“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

Gnanamorrthy Suresh, Tirupattur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Vellore

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

ITA 2623/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2623/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Gnanamoorthy Suresh,, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 210, Phase 1, Tnhb, Vellore, Ward 2, Tirupattur, Tirupattur H.O. Vellore. Tamil Nadu 635 601. [Pan:Bpcps7016G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Ranga Ramanujam, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.09.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Raised 8 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is 2

For Appellant: Shri P. Ranga Ramanujam, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 68

application seeking permission for filing additional evidence, confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR Shri P. Ranga Ramanujam, C.A. submits that the Assessing Officer did not give any consideration to the details as submitted

Manjit Singh, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6534/MUM/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 54Section 54FSection 68

circumstances of the case. 3. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 420 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal on which petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit is placed on record. Assessee submitted that there was a change in Authorised

Dev Diamonds, Mumbai vs. ITO Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 6375/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: None (Letter filed)For Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. CIT

Section 271(1)(c)

filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 03.03.2022 against the aforesaid penalty order, who confirmed the same. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Assessee has placed on record a written submission dated 24.01.2025, wherein it has opted to resolve the dispute in these appeals under

Dev Diamonds, Mumbai vs. ITO Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 6374/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: None (Letter filed)For Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. CIT

Section 271(1)(c)

Vinay Kumar Jha, Madhubani vs. PCIT-2, Patna

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

ITA 306/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Patna06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

order u/s 144 of the Act, dated 22.12.2019. I.T.A. No.: 306/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vinay Kumar Jha. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that ... admitted and dismissed for statistical purposes. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. I.T.A. No.: 306/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vinay Kumar Jha. 4. Rival contentions were heard and the record and the submissions made were examined. Before adjudicating

Saiichha Land Developers, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissinoner of Income Tax-2, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 44/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G Moryani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269SSection 40A(3)

relating to assessment year 2017-2018. 2 ITA.No.44/NAG./2023 2. There is a delay of 260 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. We are satisfied with the averments stated in the affidavit and petition seeking for condonation of delay and accordingly, we, condone the delay ... days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed the decide the appeal on merits. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a firm engaged in the business of land developers. The assessee e-filed return of income on 31.03.2018 declaring total income

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -2, Nagpur vs. Shri Rohan Jagdale, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 85/NAG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

appeal of the assessee. 5 ITA.No.85/NAG./2020 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised three grounds i.e., (i) the learned CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting addition made u/sec.2

Smt. Shakuntla Devi, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1227/CHANDI/1996[01/04/1985 to 17/07/1995]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Feb 2025

For Appellant: Shri M.R. Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 158B

assessee for the block period 01/04/1985 to 17/07/1995 at Rs.1,39,96,007/- 3. The assessee thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal on various grounds both on law and on facts. The Coordinate Bench vide its order dt. 27/11/2007 in ITA No. 1227/Chd/1996 adverting to a solitary

Sai Sakshi Automotive Ltd, Pune vs. ITO Ward-6(1), Pune

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

ITA 2725/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri B.S. RajpurohitFor Respondent: Shri Mallikarjun Utture, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing filed a voluminous paper book. Referring to the same, he submitted that

Jyoti Santosh Parakh, Sangamner vs. ITO, Ward 2, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 2450/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Bafna (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 69A

/NFAC, Delhi, relating to assessment year 2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 359 days in filing of this 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 ... appeal of the assessee without passing a speaking order. 5. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset filed certain additional evidences before the Tribunal and requested to restore the issue

Dilipkumar Laxminarayan Lohiya, Nanded vs. CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 2186/PUN/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Feb 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Govind Prasad MundadaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)(b)Section 148A

NFAC confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1) The Ld. CIT(A) Aurangabad erred while upholding the order u/s 147 of the Income

Shree Gajanan Gas Agency, Beed vs. Income Tax Officer, Beed

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

ITA 2012/PUN/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pushpadant Vinod SahujiFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare, Addl. CIT

Section 144Section 249Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

income if no return of income has been filed. 4. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended before me that the assessee has sufficient cash balance to explain the alleged cash deposited

Shailesh Parshuram Pavar, Nijampur vs. ITO Ward - 5 Panvel, Trifred Tower

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

ITA 1809/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rushikesh KashyapFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69A

Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del). 4. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset filed certain additional evidences before the Tribunal and requested to restore the issue

DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Team Universal Infratech Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.970/Hyd

ITA 969/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201

receipts as per 26AS and ITR. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised the following grounds : 1. “The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous in law as well as facts of the case ... ITA.Nos.969 & 970/Hyd/2024 11. Aggrieved by the Order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised the following grounds : 1. “The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous in law as well as facts of the case. 2. Whether

DCIT., Circle 8(1), Hyderabad vs. East India Petroleum Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1087/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1087/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. East India Petroleum Income Tax Limited Circle-8(1)(Incharge) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaace4494K] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri H.Srinivasulu, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.M.Narmada, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 06/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 19.08.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, Engaged In The Business Of Providing Terminalling Services To Oil Marketing Companies For Storage Of Bulk Liquid Products Including Fuels Like High Speed Diesel, Motor Spirit, Petroleum

For Appellant: Shri H.Srinivasulu, ARFor Respondent: Ms.M.Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 32

made towards interest expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The first issue that came up for consideration from Ground No.2 of Revenue’s appeal is deletion of addition made towards disallowance

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Kolkata vs. Intime Vanijya Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1684/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1684/Kol/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumita Das, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 250Section 68

reasonable cause’ which prevented the Revenue in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, the delay of 153 days in preferring the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned and proceed for adjudication of the appeal. 4. At the outset, I find the Revenue has filed the instant appeal against

Ashok Kumar Maiti, Panskura vs. Asst Commissioner Cir 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1325/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

dated 27.12.2016. I.T.A. No.: 1325/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ashok Kumar Maiti. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. From the facts and circumstances of the case it is obvious that the Assessing Officer and 1st Appellate Authority has not applied ... Accordingly, the additions made were confirmed and the appeal was treated as dismissed. Aggrieved with the appeal order, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, the Ld. AR appeared and argued the case stating that the assessment order was passed by the ACIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Durgapur vs. Sri Gayatri Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Durgapur

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

ITA 1324/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

dated 31.03.2014. I.T.A. No.: 1324/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sri Gayatri Minerals Pvt. Ltd. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is justified ... Gayatri Minerals Pvt. Ltd. allowed the appeal. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR drew our attention to the fact that the GP ratio

Devadass Suresh, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result the entire addition confirmed by the ld

ITA 2190/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soudararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing

Section 69A

above Order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) and CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a salaried person and he has received professional fee from M/s. Shree

Kumarswamy Gangasharaish Kallur, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1391/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. E. Shridhar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 119Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271BSection 44A

CBDT instructions on this subject. Page 4 of 7 3. Aggrieved from the Order of the learned Pr. CIT, the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and submitted that the learned Pr.CIT has no power