“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

Cholan Auto Finance, Karur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Trichy, Tiruchirappalli

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1156/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriand Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri N.V.Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154

Trey stehe after, dt arate zag IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI areig ft ay par Pk

Shivabasappa Kariyappanavar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(2), Bangalore

ITA 1537/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Sri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

ITA No.1537/Bang/2024 Shivabasappa Kariyappanavar, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A"BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Shri Aijaz Abdul Sattar Malkani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office -Ward 9(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4044/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Omkareshwar Chidara, Am Shri. Aijaz Abdul Sattar Malkani Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1)(2) 1303, Malkani Tower, Bandivali Hill Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400021. Vs. Road, Jogeshwari West, Mumbai – 400102. Pan/Gir No. Affpm4967G (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Prakash Jhunjhunwala Respondent By : Shri. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2007-08. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Addition Of Rs. 11,34,000/- Made U/S. 68 Of The Act Towards Cash Deposited In The Assessee’S Bank Account. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Is A Partner In The Firm M/S. A. M. Enterprises Which Is Engaged In The Business Of Builders & Developers & Is Also A Director In M/S. Curio Finance & Investments Pvt. Ltd. The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income Dated 26.04.2008, Declaring Total Income At Rs. Nil After Claiming

For Appellant: Shri. Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

before the first appellate authority, who vide order dated 02.02.2013 upheld the addition made by the ld. AO. 5. The assessee was in appeal before the Tribunal which vide order dated 03.06.2016 in ITA No. 4291/Mum/2013, remanded the issue to the file of the ld. AO for de novo assessment

Wamika Hospitality Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-27(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3258/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarwamika Hospitality Pvt. Vs. Ito Ltd. Ward – 27(1), C-94, Ring Road, Wazirpur Delhi – 110 092 Industrial Area, Delhi-110 052 Pan : Aabcw 0005 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. & Ms. Monalisa, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing 10.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 13.12.2024 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm:

Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 271D

part vide order dated 14.05.2024. -3- ITA No.3258/Del/2024 Wamika Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO A.Y. 2018-19 5. Being aggrieved, appellant/assessee preferred present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Learned Authorized Representative for the assessee/appellant at the time of hearing submitted that learned CIT(A) upheld the penalty order dated

Autonomy Homes P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 3(4), New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

ITA 2899/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 2896/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 2899/Del/2023:Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Autonomy Homes Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 310-A, Plot No. 3, Jaina Tower, Ward-3(4), Janak Puri, West Delhi, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110058 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaica1482F Assessee By : Sh. Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Poojan Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Twin Appeals

For Appellant: Sh. Prince Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Poojan Rana, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 69C

order dated 14th January, 2019. The assessee being aggrieved by the disallowed portion of the order passed by the CIT(A) preferred appeal before the Tribunal and in the appeal additional ground was raised contending that the action of the CIT(A) in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer

Autonomy Homes Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(4), Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

ITA 2896/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Prince Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Poojan Rana, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 69C

Pramod Kumar Rustagi, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 20, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1608/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarpramod Kumar Rustagi Vs. Acit C/O. Advocate Kanika Jain Central Circle – 20 D-80, Lgf, New Delhi Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi – 110 017 Pan : Aaepr 2763 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K. Sampath, Adv. & Shri V. Rajakumar, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Anu Krishna Agarwal, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing 10.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 13.12.2024 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm:

Section 127Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

learned CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 22.03.2023. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee/appellant preferred present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Learned Authorized Representative for the assessee/appellant submitted that recovery of Rs.96,99,500/- from Locker No.122 was part of books of accounts

Shalabh Kumar Goel, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2605/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Smt. Renu Jauhri[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Shri Shalabh Kumar Goel, Vs Dcit, D-72, Delhi Citizen Apartment, Central Circle-7, Sector-13, Near D.C.Chowk, New Delhi. Rohini, New Delhi-110085. Pan-Amkpg9295R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. & Shri Parth Singhal, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 13.12.2024

Section 145(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 234ASection 234BSection 65BSection 69A

appeal of the assessee on merits as well as on the legal issues. 5. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During the course of hearing, Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the legal grounds i.e. Ground Nos.1 & 2 are not being pressed

Smt. Sumitradevi Kamalkumar Agrawal, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1309/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1309/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. Sumitradevi The Ito बनाम/ Kamalkumar Agrawal Ward-5(3)(2) V/S. C/O.Ketan H. Shah, Advocate Ahmedabad 512, Times Square-1 Opp. Ram Baug Bungalow Thaltej, Shilaj Road, Thaltej Ahmedabad – 380 059 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaupa 5783 C अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan H. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Ketan H. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151

outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 82 days on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an Affidavit dated 11/07/2024 seeking condonation of the said delay on the grounds that no intimation of this ... that there was a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay of 82 days on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and even learned DR has not raised any material objection in this regard. We, therefore, condone the said delay and proceed to adjudicate

Learning Universe LLP, New Delhi vs. DDIT, DDIT CPC Bangaluru

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

ITA 1828/PUN/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Abhinav Jain (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 34(4)

Addl/JCIT(A), Aurangabad relating to assessment year 2023-24. 2. There is a delay of 8 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal, for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents ... appellant is disposed of as dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income

Kumbhi Kasari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Kolhapur vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Kolhapur

In the result, all the above six appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposed

ITA 1456/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A)/NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that inadvertently, the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A)/NFAC

Kumbhi Kasarisahakari Sakhar Kharkhana Limited, Kolhapur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Kolhapur

In the result, all the above six appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposed

ITA 1455/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

Kumbhi Kasari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Kolhapur vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Kolhapur

In the result, all the above six appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposed

ITA 1454/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

Kumbhi Kasari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Kolhapur vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Kolhapur

In the result, all the above six appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposed

ITA 1453/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

Kumbhi Kasari Sahakari Sakhar Kharkhana Limited, Kolhapur vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Kolhapur

In the result, all the above six appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposed

ITA 1452/PUN/2024[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

Kumbhi Kasari Sahakari Sakhar Kharkhana Limited, Kolhapur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Kolhapur

In the result, all the above six appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposed

ITA 1451/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

Jalna Maheshwari Charitable Foundation, Jalna vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 1288/PUN/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrajalna Maheshwari Charitable Foundation Cit (Exemption), Pune H.N.1-29-11203 A-60, Pritisudha Nagar, Vs. Jalna – 431203 Pan: Aafcj6375D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anand Partani Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-12-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-12-2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Anand PartaniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

provisional registration granted on 28.02.2023 u/s 12AB of the Act. 2. There is a delay of 30 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal, for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents ... Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby cancelled.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(Exemption), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: a. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, the Ld. CIT Exemption Pune has erred

Chetan Traders, Mumbai vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, CIT(A), Pune-11, Pune

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

ITA 1255/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora, Saukhya D Lakade and Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69C

grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are DISMISSED.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer erred

Chetan Traders, Mumbai vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, CIT(A), Pune-11, Pune

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

ITA 1254/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora, Saukhya D Lakade and Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69C

Shri Pankaj Nandlal Agrawal, Nagpur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1(1), Nagpur

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

ITA 318/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 250

time of hearing.” 2. During the course of hearing, the Registry has pointed out a delay of 40 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. While going through the record available before us, we find that the assessee has filed an application dated 18/05/2024, requesting the Bench