“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

Rama Katowal Chetry, Golaghat vs. ITO Ward Golaghat, Golaghat

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

ITA 105/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.105 & 106/Gty/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jha

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 69A

invalid being defective as the defect was not cured despite being specifically pointed out to the appellant.” 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the impugned order passed by ld.CIT(A)/NFAC. ITA Nos.105 and 106/GTY/2024 Rama Katowal Chetry 5. When the case was called

Dhurjyoti Tea Company Private Limited, Pengree vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Digboi

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

ITA 104/GTY/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jan 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.103 & 104/Gty/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80I

been provided multiple opportunities to substantiate its claim with documentary evidence however the fact remains the same.” 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the impugned order. 5. When the appeals were called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice

Dhurjyoti Tea Company Private Limited, Pengree vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Digboi

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

ITA 103/GTY/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jan 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.103 & 104/Gty/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80I

Lotus Broiler Farming Division, Guwahati vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati

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

ITA 102/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102/Gty/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mody, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Sekhar Das, JCIT

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(3)

Profit ratio. Hence, the addition of Rs. 74,284/- is upheld. Ground No. 7 is dismissed accordingly.” 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that although the assessee has submitted the relevant documentary evidences before the AO in pursuance

Gomati Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Limited, Agartala vs. ACIT-National-E-Assement Centre, New Delhi

ITA 136/GTY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Ray, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 5Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

vide order dated 27.03.2023 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Heard the representatives of both the parties and perused the material on record. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that, the Tripura State Co-operative Bank is also

Shikhar Chand Jain, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur

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

ITA 555/RPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 555/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shikhar Chand Jain Gali No.3, Ashok Vihar Colony, Near Bansal School, Pandri, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Achpj2931Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

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

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 250(6)

aggrieved with the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) passed u/s.154 r.w.s. 250 of the Act, dated 23.10.2024 has carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. I have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available

Rajnandgaon Petrol Service, Rajnandgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Bhilai, Durg

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

ITA 553/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.553/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rajnandgaon Petrol Service Partner : Kulwant Singh Bhatia, Pendri, G.E. Road, Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Pan: Aagfr7601E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (written submission)For Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

appeal is Partly Allowed.” 5. The assessee firm being aggrieved with the order of the ADDL/JCIT(A), Mumbai has carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The assessee has relied upon the written submissions dated 13.01.2025. Accordingly, in the backdrop of the same, I herein proceed with

Rahul Bajpai, Idgah Chowk vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Shri Ram Plaza

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

ITA 348/RPR/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.348/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rahul Bajpai Idgah Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh-495 001 Pan: Aexpb4410L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CA

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

hesitation in admitting the same. Our 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

Umesh P. Mahansaria (HUF), Surat vs. Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Circle- 1(3), Surat

In the result, the addition of undisclosed income under section 68 is deleted

ITA 151/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 151/Srt/2024 (Ay 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Umesh P. Mahansaria (Huf) Deputy Commissioner Of Income- C-501, The Legend, Vastu Gram, Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat, बनाम Vesu, Surat-395 007 Aaykar Bhavan, Anavil Building, Vs [Pan : Aaahu 6298 L] Adajan, Surat-395 009 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 10(38)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

need to interference with the addition made in the 5 Umesh P. Mahansaria (HUF) assessment order. Further, aggrieved, assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the submission of Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee and Ld. Senior Departmental Representative

Kamlesh Hasmukhlal Gajjar HUF, Surat vs. ITO, Circle 1(3), Surat

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

ITA 1084/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani(Hybrid Hearing) Kamlesh Hasmukhlal Gajjar Huf, A.C.I.T., 401-402, Sai Leela Appartment, Nr. Circle-1(3), Vs. Umrigar School, Umra, Surat-395007. Surat. Pan No. Aahhk 7551 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)

record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee fairly submits that there is delay of 2 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. AR of the Kamlesh Hasmukhlal Gajjar HUF Vs ACIT assessee submits that the delay of 2 days is neither intentional nor deliberate

Vinayak Steel, Pehowa vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kurukshetra

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 499/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

supporting evidences were filed, such a PNB account and balance sheet evidencing the creditworthiness of the lenders. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, in regard to Jai Kishan Dass Kirori Mal, filed bank statement evidencing by cheque Page

Sh. Shirom Lamba, Chandigarh vs. ITO, Ward- 2(3), Chandigarh

ITA 702/CHANDI/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Respondent: Sh. Vineet Krishan, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 22DSection 50CSection 50C(2)

shares at Rs.74,55,700/-, and thereby directed the AO to re- compute the capital gain accordingly. Aggrieved, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The facts are admitted that the assessee

Lanxess India Private Limited, Thane vs. Income-Tax Officer, Wagle Industrial Estate

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

ITA 4632/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Prabhash Shankar ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

addition in the hands of the assessee amounting to Rs.39,74,71,450/- Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO assessee in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us the Ld.AR submitted that, only issue contested on merits in the present appeal is challenging the addition made

ITO, Income Tax Department vs. Ska Techinfra Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stand dismissed on merits, whereas the CO filed by the Assessee stand dismissed being not pressed

ITA 4369/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Sawant, Ld. Sr. A.R

Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

restricting the addition of Rs. 48,00,000/- to the extent of 12.5% and deletion of addition of Rs.96,000/- by filling 2nd appeal before the Tribunal. 9 ITA No.4369/M/2024 & CO No.249/M/2024 M/s. SKA Techinfra Pvt. Ltd. 6. The Assessee by filing CO No.249/M/2024 also challenged the decision

Shilak Ram, Haryana vs. ITO Ward 4, Rohtak

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3312/DEL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.3311 To 3313/Del/2025 (Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2010-11) Dinesh Kumar, Dcit, 407, Nilgiri Apartments, Central Circle-07, Alaknanda, New Delhi-110019. Vs. New Delhi. Pan-Aiopg3637K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nirbhay Mehta, Adv. Department By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 15.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.11.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: All These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Three Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [Cit(A) In Short] All Are Dated 20.03.2025 For Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively.

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254Section 263Section 68

Revenue by Ld. PCIT vide its order dated 30.03.2018 passed u/s 263 of the Act. Against the said order, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal who dismissed the appeal of the assessee, thus, thereafter, the AO proceeded to pass the order incompliance to the directions given by Ld. PCIT ... Against the said order, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal, therefore, the assessee in his appeal before the Tribunal by taking the following rounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the appellate order

Subhash Chand, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2(4), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 989/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] V.V. Transport, Vs Acit, 96-A, Sindhu Bhawan, Rohtak Subhash Nagar, Rohtak, Haryana-124001. Pan-Aadfv5250G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Sakshi Pandey, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08.08.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.01.20248 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)/Addl/Jcit(A)-7, Kolkata [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.Cit(A), Rohtak/10584/2019-20 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 20.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm, Engaged In The Business Of Running Of Petrol Pump. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Appeal Was Filed On 28.10.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 4,29,25,730/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny For The Reasons Of Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period & Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 24.09.2018. After Considering The Submissions & The Books Of Accounts Submitted, The Ao Had Taken No Adverse Inference On The Issue Of Cash Deposited During Demonetization Period However, He Has Made Disallowance Of Inr 12,20,700/- By Holding That The Assessee Has Made Interest Free Advances To Staff & To One Of The Partners Whereas It Is Paying Interest On The Borrowings. In First Appeal, Ld.Cit(A) Has Deleted The Disallowance Made Out Of The Interest Payments Towards The Staff Advances Given However, Confirmed The Disallowance On Account Of Advances Given To The Partner Of Inr 1 Crore.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 36

disallowance on account of advances given to the partner of INR 1 crore. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer and Hon'ble CIT (Appeal) is against facts

Mathrusri Mahila Mandali Tetali, Tetali vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 214/VIZ/2024[NA]Status: PendingITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.213 & 214/Viz/2024 Mathrusri Mahila Mandali Tetali V. Cit (Exemption) Aaykar Bhawan 8-124/31, Lalitha Nagar Opposite Lb Stadium Tetali, Tanuku Mandal Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad – 500004 Tetali- 534218, Andhra Pradesh Telangana [Pan: Aabtm7021J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 12A

outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 86 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking ... days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 86 Page No. 3 I.T.A.Nos.213 & 214/VIZ/2024 Mathrusri Mahila Mandali Tetali days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 6. Briefly stated facts of the case are, assessee has been

Mathrusri Mahila Mandali Tetali, Tanaku vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 213/VIZ/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jan 2025

Section 12A

Baldev Singh, Fatehabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Wards 1, Fatehbad

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 813/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yaday & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 813/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Baldev Singh, Vs. The Ito, बनाम M/S Baldev Singh Jarnail Ward-1, Singh, Anaj Mandi, Fatehabad Dharsul Kalan, Tehsil Tohana, Fatehabad

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate and Shri Ashok Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148Section 249Section 250Section 253Section 3Section 5

/Date of Hearing : 15.01.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 17.01.2025 आदेश/Order Per Rajpal Yadav, VP: The Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 26.09.2023. 813 -Chd-2024- Baldev Singh, Fatehabad 2 2. That before ... such, a delay of 247 days ( 248 days as per Assessee) was caused in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It was submitted that the delay in filing is appeal is inadvertent, bonafide and a request was made to condone the aforesaid delay. 3. With the assistance

Mahesh Oberoi Prop. Mahesh Handloon 3212-B, Sujan Singh St. Fateh Ganj, Benjamin Road, Ludhiana, Punjab vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 375/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 69A

Hearing : 13.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 17.01.2025 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 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 28.02.2024 passed for assessment year