“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

Mritrayee Das, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-27(1), Haldia.

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

ITA 502/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 31.12.2019. I.T.A. No.: 502/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Maitrayee Das. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. FOR THAT the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-N.FA.C. acted unlawfully in upholding ... result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is Dismissed.” 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. During the course of the appeal before us, the assessee

Raj Goat Farms P. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3032/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri K. Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.Easwar, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

from the office of the First Appellate Authority. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The ld.AR submitted that the e-mail ID given in Form 35 is that of the assessee company namely ‘csrajtv@gmail.com’ whereas hearing notices

Kolambur Sambamurthy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-7(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3012/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. S.K. Vyashnavee, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Easwar, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

amounting to Rs.70,455/-. 5. Aggrieved by the FAA’s order passed u/s.250 of the Act, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The ld.AR submitted that the issue in question is covered in favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court judgment

Shiraz Muhammed Basheer, Bangalore vs. ITO, Ward-1, Puducherry

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

ITA 3006/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri V. Narayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Easwar, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the FAA’s order passed u/s.250 of the Act, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The ld.AR submitted that the issue in question is covered in favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court judgment

K.G. Boopathi, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-2, Vellore

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

ITA 2372/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2372 /Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 K.G.Boopathi, Income Tax Officer, Periya Kasinaickappati Village & Non Corp, Ward-2, Post, Kandili Tirupattur, Vellore Vellore-635901. [Pan: Apdpb5581R] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri M.Karunakaran, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Sheila Parthasarthy, Addl.Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1057454214(1) Dated 27.10.2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[Nfac], Delhi, For The Assessment Years 2017- 18. Through The Aforesaid Appeal The Assesse Has Challenged Order U/S 250 Dated 27.10.2023 Passed By Nfac, Delhi. 2.0 It Has Been Noted That There Is A Delay Of 255 Days In The Case, In Filing Of This Appeal Before The Tribunal. In Its Affidavit The Assesse Has Pleaded That The Ld.Cit(A) Had Called For A Remand Report From The Ld. Ao, Consequent To Which Assessee Had Filed Requested Details Before The Page - 1 - Of 4 :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri M.Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Sheila Parthasarthy, Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 144ASection 250

NFAC, Delhi. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 255 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the Ld.CIT(A) had called for a remand report from the Ld. AO, consequent to which

Ufx Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-3(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2358/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2358 /Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2012-13 Ufx Ventures Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.33/1, Wallajah Road, Corporate Circle-3(2), Chepauk, Chennai. Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aabcc4581E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.Shilpa Susan Kuraichan, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Sheila Parthasarthy, Addl.Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1066180820(1) Dated 28.06.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[Nfac], Delhi, For The Assessment Years 2012- 13. Through The Aforesaid Appeal The Assesse Has Challenged Order U/S 250 Dated 28.06.2024 Passed By Nfac, Delhi. 2.0 It Has Been Noted That There Is A Delay Of 12 Days In The Case, In Filing Of This Appeal Before The Tribunal. In Its Affidavit The Director Of Assessee Company Has Pleaded That There Was A Family Function At The Native Place As A Result Of Which Appeal Got Delayed .All These Activities Page - 1 - Of 5 :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Ms.Shilpa Susan Kuraichan, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Sheila Parthasarthy, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 250

NFAC, Delhi. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 12 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the Director of assessee Company has pleaded that there was a family function at the native place as a result

The Property Association of Baptist Churches Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-3, Chennai

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

ITA 2357/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2357 /Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2019-20 The Property Association Of Baptist The Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Churches Private Limited, Ward-3, No.903, Tower E2 Ekanta North Town Chennai Stephension Road, Perambur, Chennai-600 012. [Pan: Aabct2815J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri P.M.Kathir, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Sheila Parthasarthy, Addl.Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Sheila Parthasarthy, Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 250

Bengaluru. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 133 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the president of Page - 1 - of 4 :- 2 -: assesse trust has pleaded that he was very sick and admitted to hospital

Syed Abdul Cader, Chennai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, NFAC Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1794/CHNY/2024[2017-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2017-2017

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1794 /Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 Syed Abdul Cader, Income Tax Officer, Old No.7, New No.15, 1St Floor, Non Corp, Ward-12(1), Ebrahim Sahib, 2Nd Lane, Chennai Mannady, Chennai-600001. [Pan: Aadpc7099J] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri D.Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Sheila Parthasarthy, Addl.Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1060039730(1) Dated 23.01.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[Nfac], Delhi, For The Assessment Years 2017- 18. Through The Aforesaid Appeal The Assesse Has Challenged Order U/S 250 Dated 23.01.2024 Passed By Nfac, Delhi. 2.0 It Has Been Noted That There Is A Delay Of 114 Days In The Case, In Filing Of This Appeal Before The Tribunal. In Its Affidavit The Assesse Has Pleaded That It Did Not Receive The Appellate Order Of The Ld.Cit(A) Which Was Electronically Transmitted, As A Result Of Which He Was Not Aware Of It. Page - 1 - Of 4 :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Sheila Parthasarthy, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 250

NFAC, Delhi. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 114 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that it did not receive the appellate order of the Ld.CIT(A) which was electronically transmitted

Palo Alto Networks (India) Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2073/BANG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Khurana & Ms. Divya Motwani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Venktesh V, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 234CSection 24BSection 250Section 43B

Gujarat High Court is extracted as under: 5. We are conscious that there was considerable delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. However, theCourts have been viewing delay, particularly when the same is well explained, rather liberally. When thecause of substantial justice is pitted against technicalities, the Courts ... largely reluctant to terminate legalproceedings on technical grounds. In the present case, there was sufficient explanation rendered by theassessee for preferring the appeal before the Tribunal after some delay. In our view, such delay ought to havebeen condoned. 11.3 From the preceding discussion, we note that the assessee has demonstrated

Magadi Planning Authority, Ramnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1353/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kumar Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 147Section 148Section 2(13)Section 2(15)Section 260A

assessment year was pending till the date of registration. It cannot be for the assessment year 2011-12 due to pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal. If the benefit of Section 11 and 12 is extended for the assessment year 2011-12, despite submission of the application for registration

Hindu Jagruti Nyas, Thane vs. CIT-Exemption Pune, Pune

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

ITA 6162/MUM/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhri & Hindu Jagruti Nyas V/S. Cit-Exemption, Thane B-202, Garatri Apartment, बनाम Ito Exemption, Sambhaji Road, Quereshi Mansion, Vishnu Nagar, Exemption Ward, Naupada-400602. Thane-400602. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaath3172Q Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri. Sanjiv G. Brahme, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Biswanath Das-CIT DR

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

file supporting evidence in respect of its charitable activities. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(Exemption), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2024-25 Hindu Jagruti Nyas 6. At the very outset, Ld. AR has submitted that

Hindu Jagruti Nyas, Thane vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 6161/MUM/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2024-25

For Appellant: Shri. Sanjiv G. Brahme, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Biswanath Das-CIT DR

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

Kamna Jain, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari, Dhamtari

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 550/RPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 550/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Smt. Kamna Jain C/O. Sapna Steel, Arihant Building, Bastar Road, Dhamtari (C.G.)-493 773 Pan: Achpj0044L

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 147Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

hesitation in admitting the same. My aforesaid view that where an assessee, had raised, though for the first time, an additional ground of appeal before the Tribunal which involves purely a question of law and requires no further verification of facts, then, the same merits admission finds support from ... result the appeal is Partly Allowed.” 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. I have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available

Shree Shanti Industries, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee firm is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 545/RPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 545/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shree Shanti Industries Heerapur, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Abcfs3156Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

Ward-1(2), Raipur 7. The assessee firm being aggrieved with the order of the ADDL/JCIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. I have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available

M/S Shri Mangalam Traders, Mahasamund, Mahasamud vs. Income Tax Officer, Mahasamund, Mahasamud

In the result, appeal of the assessee firm is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 538/RPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.538/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Shri Mangalam Traders 1, Village-Parsada, Post- Bemcha, Tehsil: Mahasamund-493 445 (C.G.) Pan : Abdfs1546F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Mahasamund (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prafulla Pendse, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

appeal is dismissed.” 5. The assessee firm being aggrieved with the order of the ADDL/JCIT(A), Udaipur has carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 7 M/s. Shri Mangalam Traders Vs. ITO, Mahasamund ITA No.538 /RPR/2024 6. I have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused

Sunita Sherwani, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 506/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.506/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Sunita Sherwani S-19, Rajeev Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Attps9943C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

hesitation in admitting the same. My aforesaid view that where an assessee, had raised, though for the first time, an additional ground of appeal before the Tribunal which involves purely a question of law and requires no further verification of facts, then, the same merits admission finds support from ... Sherwani Vs. ITO-4(1), Raipur 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. I have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available

Jayeshbhai Becharbhai Chovatiya, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(2), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 610/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 610/Srt/2024 (Ay 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Jayeshbhai Becharbhai Chovatiya Ito, Ward-2(3)(2), 293 Hans Society, Opp. Krishna Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, बनाम Township Mota Varachha, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Vs Surat-394 101 Surat-395 001 [Pan : Aqipp 0434 H] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 115BSection 11BSection 133(6)Section 14Section 142(1)Section 144Section 254(1)Section 69

Therefore, he has no reason to interfere with the addition made in the assessment order. Further, aggrieved by the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the submission of Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) of the assessee and have gone through the orders of lower authorities

Nikunjkumar Ghanshyambhai Desai, Desai Street vs. Income Tax Officer, Second Floor

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

ITA 176/SRT/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.176/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Nikunjkumar Ghanshyambhai Desai, Vs. The Ito, Panetha Desai Street Paneth, Zaghadia, Ward – 1(4), Bharuch – 393120, Gujarat Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Amgpd2814B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Piyush Panchal, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2025

Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee filed a paper book and submitted the ‘Statement of Fact’ along with the application for ITA No.176/SRT/2024/AY.2011-12 Nikunjkumar Ghanshyambhai Desai

Pareshbhai Khodabhai Godhani, Surat vs. NFAC, Aayakar Bhavan, Surat

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

ITA 153/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing) Pareshbhai Khodabhai Godhani, I.T.O., 121, 122, Ishwarkrupa Society, B/H. Ward 2(3)(3), Vs. Laxman Nagar Society, Laxman Nagar, Aayakar Bhavan, Punagam Road, Punagam, Surat. Surat-394210 (Gujarat) Pan No. Anepg 8437 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 144Section 254(1)Section 69A

record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee fairly submits that there is delay of 17 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. Impugned order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) on 28/11/2023, however, this appeal is filed on 13/02/2024. The assessee has already filed application ... opening ITBA Portal on 05/02/2024, his consultant found that the appeal has already been dismissed vide order dated 28/11/2023. The assessee immediately filed appeal before this Tribunal. Though, there is no delay in filing appeal from the date of knowledge of impugned order, yet for abandon caution, the assessee

Madhuben Harkishandas Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward2(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 1085/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1085/Srt/2024 (Ay 2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Madhuben Harkishandas Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward- 65, Vav Faliyu, Village-Sandhiyer, 2(2)(1), Surat, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम Surat-394 130 Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 Vs [Pan : Azfpp 1116 Q] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 254(1)Section 55A

outset of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that there is delay of 88 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. The impugned order was passed by Ld.CIT(A) on 28.05.2024, the assessee was required to file appeal on or before Tribunal on 27.07.2024. This ... appeal is not inordinate and seems to be bona fide, therefore, in the interest of justice, the delay of 88 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal is condoned. 5. Now adverting to the merit of the case. We find that Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1.36 crores