← 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

Grene Robotics India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 152/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.152/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2020-21) M/S. Nnf State Chapter Telangana, Income Tax Officer Vs. Hyderabad. (Exemptions), Pan: Aaean1771C Ward-1(2), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms. G. Saratha, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 18/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M. : This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Nnf State Chapter Telangana (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 20.11.2024 For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. G. Saratha, SR-DR
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B

dismissed the appeal ex-parte. 5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. The Learned Authorised Representative (Ld. AR) submitted that, the assessee is in appeal on two issues i.e. (i) additions of Rs.21,51,000/- on account of corpus

Cosmic Informatics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle - 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2444/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

deleted the DCIT vs. Lotus Hearbals Pvt. Ltd. disallowances made by the AO. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law, in deleting the disallowance ... Revenue is maintainable on this issue. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions wherein the Courts/Tribunal have held that appeal before the Tribunal is not maintainable where assessing officer has accepted the issue in remand report furnished before CIT(A)  Jivallal Purtapshi

Cosmic Informatics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle - 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2443/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

deleted the DCIT vs. Lotus Hearbals Pvt. Ltd. disallowances made by the AO. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law, in deleting the disallowance ... Revenue is maintainable on this issue. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions wherein the Courts/Tribunal have held that appeal before the Tribunal is not maintainable where assessing officer has accepted the issue in remand report furnished before CIT(A)  Jivallal Purtapshi

Arnab Kumar Goswami, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 62(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1710/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1710/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arnab Kumar Goswami……….. ……..…..…………………....Appellant Flat – 1C, Subham Apartment, Narayantala East, Baguiati, Kolkata – 700059. [Pan: Ahbpg0395G] Vs. Ito, Ward-62(1), Kolkata…. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Dilip Sahu, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. Drs, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 01, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.06.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Act By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,52,310/- During The Relevant Assessment Year. The Assessee Purchased An Immovable Property At Rajarhat At Sale Consideration Of Rs.25,00,000/-. However, The Stamp Duty Value Of The Property As Per Deed Of Conveyance Dated 05.09.2016 Was Rs.35,36,655/-. The Difference Of Rs.10,36,655/- Was Splitted Between The Assessee & His Spouse Amounting To Rs.5,18,327/-. Accordingly, The Assessing Officer Invoked Section 56(2)(Vii) Of The Act & Added Rs.5,18,327/- To The Total Income Of The Assessee As ‘Income From Other Sources’ While Framing Assessment. The

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151(1)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

assessee was dismissed by upholding the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal contending that the reassessment notice u/s 148 of the Act was beyond 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year as per section

Mohd Vizzarath Ali, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1271/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1271/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mohd.Vizzarath Ali Vs. Ito, Ward-8(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Avdpa3594K] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms.S.Sandhya, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Ms.P.Sunitha, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 01/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2017-18. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That The Appeal Has Been Filed With A Delay Of 47 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay & Submitted That The Assessee Was Under Medical Treatment For B/L Renal Calculi & Lumbar Spondalysis & He Was Advised Complete Bedrest. The Assessee

For Appellant: Ms.S.Sandhya, ARFor Respondent: : Ms.P.Sunitha, DR
Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

advised complete bedrest. The assessee 2 submitted a medical certificate in proof and pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was due to the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee, which are neither intentional nor deliberate. He, therefore, pleaded to condone the delay and admit ... days. Reckoning the date of the appellate order i.e. 21.08.2024 as the date of service, the assessee ought to have filed appeal before the Tribunal within 60 days from the end of the month in which the appellate order was issued and served on the assessee i.e. on or before

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. Arunai Motor Finance, Karur

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

ITA 2115/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2115/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Arunai Motor Finance, Income Tax, 326(895), First Floor, Jawahar Bazaar, Central Circle-2, Opp. To Taluk Office, Karur 639 001. Trichy. [Pan:Aazfa7179B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing, The Ld. Ar Shri R. Venkata Raman, Ca Submits That The Tax Effect In The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Less Than The Monetary Limit Of ₹.60,00,000/- Fixed By The Cbdt To File An Appeal By The Revenue Before The Tribunal As Per The Cbdt Circular No. 06/2024, Dated 17.09.2024. The Ld. Dr Fairly Conceded & Being So, The 2

For Appellant: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA

06/2024, dated 17.09.2024. The ld. DR fairly conceded and being so, the 2 I.T.A. No.2115/Chny/24 Revenue authorities are precluded from filing the appeal before the Tribunal, since the tax effect is less than ₹.60,00,000/- in this appeal. Thus, the appeal filed by the Revenue is liable