“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

Rishi Khare, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-12(6), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 827/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.827/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Rishi Khare Vs. Ito, Ward-12(6) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Amjpk4465G] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Pankaj Sancheti, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri R.Kumaran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.05.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2020-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That The Appeal Has Been Filed With A Delay Of 45 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Submitted That The Assessee Was Not Informed Of The Issuance Of The Order Dated 13.05.2024 By The Ld.Cit(A) & He Was Under The Genuine Belief That The Matter

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Sancheti, ARFor Respondent: : Shri R.Kumaran, DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 90

when his CA found the same on the income tax portal and on his advice, immediately, the assessee took steps to file appeal before the Tribunal, which caused the delay of 45 days. The assessee further submitted that the delay was not due to negligence, willful neglect or any intention ... case and also the reason that the assessee is a regular filer of income tax, we condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return

Krishna Reddy Nalabolu, Kodad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Suryapet

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 607/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.607/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Krishna Reddy Nalabolu Vs. Ito, Ward-1 Kodad Suryapet [Pan : Aogpn5115B] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Mohd.Afzal, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri R.Kumaran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.04.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2017-18 On The Following Grounds : 1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Against The Law, Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Erred In Assuming That The Addition Made By The Ao Of Rs.46,89,500/- U/S 69A Of The Act Is Justified.

For Appellant: Mohd.Afzal, ARFor Respondent: : Shri R.Kumaran, DR

Section 115BSection 69A

additions made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the Ld.CIT(A) order, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee, Mohd Afzal submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions made towards cash deposited

Elumalai Sumathi, Bapatla vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ongole

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

ITA 1165/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1165/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Elumalai Sumathi Vs. Income Tax Officer Bapatla Ward-1 [Pan :Abipe4083C] Ongole (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri U.Mini Chandran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Pertaining To A.Y.2016-17 On The Following Grounds : 1. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.36,60,000 As Unexplained Investment U/S 69 Of The Act After Having Admitted The Additional Evidence Filed By The Assessee Under Rule 46A. 2. Any Other Ground Or Grounds That May Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: : Shri U.Mini Chandran, DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 253(3)Section 69

also since she was staying almost 300 kms away from Hyderabad, it took time for her to approach suitable consultant to file appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee further submitted that the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal were neither deliberate nor on account ... assessee on 09.08.2024 and as per the amended provisions of section 253(3) of the Act, the assessee ought to have filed appeal before the Tribunal within 60 days from the end of the month in which the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is communicated to the assessee

Loveen Babu Vuppala, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1121/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1121/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Loveen Babu Vuppala Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward-9(1) [Pan : Alppv1796E] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms.Aluru V Sai Sudha, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri R.Kumaran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], Kolkata, Pertaining To A.Y.2021-22 On The Following Grounds : 1. The Cit(A) Erred In Not Condoning The Delay & Not Admitting The Appeal 2. The Cit(A) Erred In Holding That There Was No Sufficient Cause For Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeal

For Appellant: Ms.Aluru V Sai Sudha, ARFor Respondent: : Shri R.Kumaran, DR

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234A

rejected the appeal in ‘liminie’ for the delay in filing the appeal. Aggrieved by the Ld.CIT(A) order, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appeal filed by the assessee in limine, even

Masineni Hotels Private Limited, Anantapur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Anantapur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 346/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.346/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Masineni Hotels Private Vs. Acit, Circle-1 Limited Anantpur Anantapur [Pan : Aahcm6211F] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Mohd.Afzal, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.05.2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2016-17 On The Following Grounds : 1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.2,35,48,000/- Being The Difference In The Share Capital, Share Application & Other Loan Subscribed / Given By Managing Director Shri M.Ramaiah U/S 68 Of The Income Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”), 1961 (The Act).

For Appellant: Mohd.Afzal, ARFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

Section 68

Assessing Officer towards the amount received from Smt.K.Lakshmi Devi. 6. Aggrieved by the Ld.CIT(A) order, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards share application

Cloret Investments Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 11(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 724/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, DR

Section 68

outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this is a second round of appeal before the Tribunal. In the first round of appeal, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the ld. AO to decide the issues afresh. However, by relying on the agreement dated

Cloret Investments Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-11(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 723/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, DR

Section 68

Kumarapuram Service Co-Operative Bank Limited Number 2147 Thamallackal, Alappuzha vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 2, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 729/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sabu, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. Before us it is submitted that the assessment proceedings were initiated during the period of Covid-19 pandemic

Kumarapuram Service Co-Operative Bank Limited Number 2147 Thamallackal, Alappuzha vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 2, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 728/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sabu, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Kumarapuram Service Co-Operative Bank Limited Number 2147 Thamallackal, Alappuzha vs. Assessing Officer Ward 2, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 727/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sabu, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Kumarapuram Service Co-Operative Bank Limited Number 2147 Thamallackal, Alappuzha vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 2, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 726/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sabu, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Medical College Employees Credit Co-Operative Society Limited No. 721, Trivandrum vs. ITO, WD-2(1), Trivandrum

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

ITA 465/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Medical College Employees Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd. Medical College P.O. Thiruvananthapuram 695011 [Pan: Aafam2291P] .......... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - 2(1), Thiruvananthapuram .......... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 68

Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & Another 118 ITR 461. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. The learned A.R. has filed a letter seeking adjournment on the ground the senior partner of the CA firm

Naveen Kumar, I.T.O.-19(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ashok Industrial Corporation, Mumbai

ITA 4160/MUM/2024[2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2024

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal SethiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

income estimated @ 2% of alleged bogus purchases the same could not be sustained. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. 5. We have heard both the sides, given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and have perused ... During assessment proceedings, the addition was made on estimation @ 12.5%. In the first appeal, the addition was restricted to 3% and on further appeal to the Tribunal by the Revenue, the addition was enhanced to 6%. 5 Assessment Year 2009-2010 The entire addition right from assessment stage

N C Shaw and Co Beverages Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Range-2, Kolkata

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

ITA 1947/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271CSection 28

grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed.” 3.3. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. AO had misconstrued the provisions of the Act. The assessee

N C Shaw and Co Beverages Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS Circle 2(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1925/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271CSection 28

Atiq Ahmed, Hapur vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(4), Hapur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3676/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3675 & 3676/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14& 2014-15 बनाम Atiq Ahmed Income Tax Officer, House No.333, Bhamda Patti, Vs. Ward-2(3)(4), Pattharwalakaun, Aaykarbhawan, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh. Teachers Colony, Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No. Aifpa8796G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

also confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer exactly on identical all the facts. 4.1 Aggrieved assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the CIT(A) has confirmed the reopening

Atiq Ahmed, Hapur vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(4), Hapur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3675/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

Abhinav Malik, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-31(1), Delhi

ITA 3525/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanabhinav Malik Income Tax Officer, D 114, Saket, Ward-31(1), Delhi-110 017 Vs. Delhi. Pan:Aiypm6590K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Divya Gujral, Ca Department By Shriyogesh Kumar Nayyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/12/2024

For Appellant: (i) That the transaction in hand i.e., the property transacted located at 18, Bl

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 56Section 56(2)(vii)

passed as per law after discussing the relevant facts.” The CIT(A) has not accepted the claim and aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before the Tribunal, assessee raised the above noted issue on two facets. The first facet is that the transaction in hand

M/S Maheshwari Coal Benefication & Infrastructure P Ltd., Bilaspur vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(1), Nagpur

ITA 119/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

view of the above the Ground No. 1 to 6 of the appeal are hereby dismissed.” The assessee being aggrieved is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 10. Before us, the learned Counsel, Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, appearing for the assessee, submitted that the assessee is engaged in wholesale trading

M/S Maheshwari Coal Benefication & Infrastructure P Ltd., Bilaspur vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(1), Nagpur

ITA 117/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68