← 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

Sanjay Vasantrao Patil, Satana vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - Malegaon

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

ITA 1893/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI R.K. PANDA (Vice President), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2014-15. 2. There is a delay of 128 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed an application along with affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay which are as under ... dismissing the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution and endorsing the findings of the Ld. AO, against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, there was non-compliance

Vijaymala Vilas Kalokhe, Pune vs. ITO Ward-10(1), Pune

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

ITA 1666/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1666/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vijaymala Vilas Kalokhe, Ito, Ward-10(1), Pune Aditya Row House, Lane No. 2, Opp. Patel Garden, Sr. No. 8/2A, Vs. Juni Sangavi, Maharashtra-411027 Pan : Asepk8161G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 28-01-2026 Date Of 30-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.06.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2013-14. 2. Briefly Stated The Facts Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. He Filed His Return Of Income For Ay 2013-14 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,21,050/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) After Following The Mandate Procedure As Laid Down Under The Relevant Provisions Of The Act. Accordingly, Statutory Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act & Show Cause Letter(S) Were Issued To The Assessee From Time To Time. However, The Assessee Failed To File Any Response To The Said Notice(S) Which Constrained The Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ao”) To Pass An Ex-Parte Order U/S 144 Of The Act Based On The Material Available On Record. The Ld. Ao Proceeded To Complete The Assessment On Total Income Of Rs.2,66,70,989/-U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act Thereby Making An Addition Of Rs.2,63,83,209/- On Account Of Undisclosed Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) By Observing As Under : “5.1. On-Going Through The Information Available On Record & In View Of The Order Passed U/S 148A(D) Of The Act Dated 21.07.2022, It Is Noticed That 2

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50C

failed to furnish any documentary evidence in supporting the reasons given for delay in filing the appeal. 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : “1. The learned CIT(A), NAFC erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition

Jeevandhara Coop Credit Soc Ltd, Pune vs. Pne W- 56 (2), Pune

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

ITA 1660/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Y. Balawade
Section 143(3)Section 80P

absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. When the appeal was called for hearing, neither anybody appeared from the side of the assessee nor any application for adjournment

Karwar Nagari Sahakari Patsansta Maryadit, Pune vs. Pne -W- 59(1), Pune

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

ITA 1658/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Y. Balawade
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80P

absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. When the appeal was called for hearing, neither anybody appeared from the side of the assessee nor any application for 3 adjournment

Mahesh Kumar Bhati, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1860/HYD/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: transfer making it a long term capital asset whereas the A.O. has treated the same as short term capital asset. 4. The assessment made by learned A.O. and upheld by the CIT(A) is incorrect as while computing capital gains indexed cost of acquisition has not been considered leading to excess assessment. 7. For these and other ground which may be raised during OR before the

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

appeal filed by the assessee ex-parte for non-prosecution. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 6. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee contended that the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the order

Ankit Jain, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle -1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1545/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 292CSection 69

were not raised before the CIT(A), therefore, an application has been filed seeking admission of the same as additional grounds of appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR had drawn our attention to the application filed by the assessee seeking admission of the grounds of appeal No.3 ... were not raised before the CIT(A), therefore, an application has been filed seeking admission of the same as additional grounds of appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR had drawn our attention to the application filed by the assessee seeking admission of the grounds of appeal

Ankit Jain, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle - 1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1544/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Us:

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 292CSection 69

were not raised before the CIT(A), therefore, an application has been filed seeking admission of the same as additional grounds of appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR had drawn our attention to the application filed by the assessee seeking admission of the grounds of appeal No.3 ... were not raised before the CIT(A), therefore, an application has been filed seeking admission of the same as additional grounds of appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR had drawn our attention to the application filed by the assessee seeking admission of the grounds of appeal

Satya Kour, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1032/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 4Section 69A

assessment year 2016-17. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 48 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay and submitted that the order of the learned CIT(A), NFAC ... passed on 24.02.2025 and the due date for filing of appeal before the Tribunal was 25.04.2025, but the assessee could file appeal before the Tribunal on 17.06.2025 with the delay of 48 days, owing to the fact that the assessee is a senior citizen and unaware of income tax / online

H R Infracon Limited, Howrah vs. DCIT, Circle 7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2835/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250Section 68

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2022-23 dated 13.11.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “GROUND NO. 1: VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE- FAILURE TO AFFORD ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD 1.1 That ... addition made by the Ld. AO was upheld. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the case was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR. Ground

Manoj Kumar Saha & Sons HUF, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 44(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1853/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 250

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2014-15 dated 20.06.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs 90,40,031/- as unexplained cash ... other reasons mentioned, the addition was confirmed. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. ITA No.: 1853/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Manoj Kumar Saha & Sons HUF. 5. Rival submissions were heard and the record and the submissions made

Shree Salasar Commercial Company Private Limited, West Bengal vs. I.T.O Ward 10(1), Kolkata, West Bengal

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

ITA 1131/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2012-13 dated 02.04.2024. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred on facts and in law, in not quashing the impugned ... accepted and the appeal was dismissed. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the appeal was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR. It was discussed with

Karuppannan Ramasamy, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Namakkal

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 3181/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3180 & 3181/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2017-18

For Respondent: Ms. R.Kavitha, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 250

confirmed the additions made A.O for the reason that the assessee did not respond to the notices issued. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. There was a delay of 556 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee

Karuppannan Ramasamy, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Namakkal

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 3180/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3180 & 3181/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2017-18

For Respondent: Ms. R.Kavitha, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 250

confirmed the additions made A.O for the reason that the assessee did not respond to the notices issued. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. There was a delay of 556 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee

Sa L and Company, Madurai vs. ITO, Non Crop Circle 1, Madurai

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

ITA 3126/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3126/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 S A L & Company, The Income Tax Officer, No.4/798, Kurunchi Street, Vs. Non-Corporate Circle 1, Thasildar Nagar, Madurai Anna Nagar, Madurai – 625 020 Pan: Abmfs 7293N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl.CIT
Section 250

hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18. :- 2 -: 2. There is a delay of 674 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit along with petition for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal ... that the managing partner of the assessee firm is a senior citizen and was not conversant with the procedural requirements for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It is further explained that the email ID of the erstwhile auditor continued to remain registered on the Income-tax e-filing portal

Parthasarathi Prabakaran, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-3, Vellore

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3111/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3111/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Respondent: Ms. R.Kavitha, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

notices issued by the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) upheld the order of the A.O ex-parte. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. There is a delay of 63 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. The assessee ... only when penalty show cause notice was issued, the assessee came to know of the appellate order being passed and immediately filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable

Late Nammalvar, Rep. by Padma Nammalvar, Nannilam vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tiruvarur

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

ITA 2310/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2310/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Late Nammalvar, The Income Tax Officer, Rep. By Smt. Padma Vs. Ward 1, Nammallvar, Tiruvarur No.1, Andal Gas Agency, Tiruvarur Main Road, Nannilam – 610 105. Pan: Aaepn 6229J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Girish Kumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl.CIT
Section 139Section 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

income and audit report within the due date prescribed. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a paper- book enclosing therein the death certificate, the legal heir certificate, :- 4 -: the return of income filed, audit report

Karthik Lakshman, Chennai vs. Iyo, Intl Taxationward-1(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2182/CHNY/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2182/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2024-25

For Respondent: Ms. R.Kavitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 205Section 250

deposited to the Govt. account was denied. On further appeal, the CIT(A) dismissed the contentions of the assessee. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Tax.)-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Marriott International Inc, Mumbai

ITA 7519/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 156Section 250Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

also directed the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. 5. In the appeal before the Tribunal in quantum proceedings, the assessee raised the additional ground challenging the validity of the draft assessment order passed by the AO along with notice

Dhaval Dinesh Shah, Vasai, Thane vs. Ward 42(1)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.4 raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5575/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Asif KarmaliFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 69A

dated 09/07/2025, the Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal preferred by the Assessee. 6. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. Ground No.1 to 3 7. Ground No.1 to 3 raised by the Assessee pertained

Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Mumbai vs. ITO (42)(1)(2), Kautilya Bhavan

Appeal are disposed of partly in

ITA 4728/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 44A

Hence, this ground of the appeal is dismissed.” 5. To challenge the aforesaid observation of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred the appeal before the tribunal, which is under consideration before us in the present matter. 6. At the outset Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee (in short ‘Ld.AR