“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

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 317/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

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

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 316/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 250

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 315/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 250

Purushottam Narayanrao Jadhao, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 3(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 283/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

according to law.” 2. During the course of hearing, the Registry has pointed out a delay of 21 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 Affidavit sworn on 19/04/2024, requesting the Bench

Anita Snehadeep Soni, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 4(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 274/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 147Section 69A

appellate proceedings.” 2. During the course of hearing, the Registry has pointed out a delay of 138 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. While going through the record available before us, we find that the assessee has filed a letter dated 30/11/2024, requesting the Bench for condoning

The Buldhana District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd, Buldhana vs. DCIT, Akola Circle, Akola

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 125/NAG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 143(1)

assessment year 2007-08 and the same has been allowed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Revenue has not filed appeal before the Tribunal. The claim was accepted in first appeal. 3 The Buldhana District Central Co–operative Bank Ltd. ITA no.125/Nag./2020 5. The return of income

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Akola Circle, Akola vs. The Buldhana District Central Co-Op Bank Limited, Buldhana

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 118/NAG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 143(1)Section 45(1)

computation of income is respect of reversal of NPA interest credited to P&L account Aggrieved, now the assessee is in second appeal before the Tribunal.” Department has also filed an appeal on the point of reversal of subvention of Interest receivable credited in P&L account. However Tribunal ... this account. Thus, Ground No.1 stands allowed.” The Revenue being aggrieved by the order so passed by the learned CIT(A), filed appeal before the Tribunal. He prayed that interest once accrued is irreversible though not collected. 5. Before us, the learned Departmental Representative assailing the impugned order passed

Mohammed Zakaria Shaik, Kadapa vs. ITO., Ward-1, Kadapa

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

ITA 1179/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1179/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mohammed Zakaria Shaik Vs. Income Tax Officer Kadapa Ward-1 [Pan : Avqps0420D] Kadapa (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms.S.Sandhya, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Ms.Reema Yadav,Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 12/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.09.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Has Not Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y.2017-18. The Case Has Been Selected For Scrutiny, To Verify The Source For Cash Deposit Of Rs.21,38,500/- In The Bank Account During The Demonetization Period I.E. From 09.11.2016

For Appellant: Ms.S.Sandhya, ARFor Respondent: : Ms.Reema Yadav,DR

Section 69A

appeal filed by the assessee, unadmitted and dismissed the appeal in limine. Aggrieved by the Ld.CIT(A) order, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee, unadmitted

Chilakala Govinda Sekhar, Mylavaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Proddutur

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

ITA 1173/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member), Shri K. Narasimha Chary (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms.S.Sandhya, ARFor Respondent: : Ms.Reema Yadav,DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)

appellate order was passed by the Ld.CIT(A), in the second week of November 2024 and he had taken steps to file the appeal before the Tribunal, which caused delay of 331 days, however, the said delay is neither intentional nor wanton of any undue benefit, but beyond the control ... facts and circumstances of the case and also the reasons given by the appellant, 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 appellant is an individual

Ramesh Keshwatkar, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1075/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1075/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ramesh Keshwatkar Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-13(1) [Pan :Adopk9626P] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.K.Gupta, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Ms.Reema Yadav,Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 12/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. Cit(A)], Mumbai, Relating To A.Y.2017-18 On The Following Grounds : 1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Addition Of Rs.6,18,000/- Is Not Justifiable. 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Ought To Have Closed The Proceedings Against The Deceased Person Especially When The Fact Of Death Of The Assessee Was Brought To The Notice Of Ld.Cit During The Pendency Of Appeal Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Gupta, ARFor Respondent: : Ms.Reema Yadav,DR

Section 69A

amount of cash deposit of Rs.6,18,000/- has been confirmed. 4. Aggrieved by the Ld.CIT(A) order, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee, referring to various bank statements of the appellant and his wife, submitted that the appellant derives income

Venkata Gurunatha Rao Swamy, Suryapet vs. ITO., Ward-1, Suryapet

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

ITA 1032/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member), Shri K. Narasimha Chary (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms.S.Sandhya, ARFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)

dismissed on technical grounds without considering the issues on merits. 7. Aggrieved by the Ld.CIT(A) order, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal and submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte, without considering the grounds on merits. Therefore, submitted that

ACIT Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Satty and Associates, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 236/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.162 & 163/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19) Satty & Associates Vs. Assistant Commissioner Hyderabad Of Income Tax [Pan : Aawfs8350D] Central Circle-1(2) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.236/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Assistant Commissioner Of Satty & Associates Hyderabad Income Tax [Pan : Aawfs8350D] Central Circle-1(2) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.13/Hyd/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.236/Hyd/2022) Assistant Commissioner Of Satty & Associates Hyderabad Income Tax [Pan : Aawfs8350D] Central Circle-1(2) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S Rama Rao, Ar (Appeared Through Virtual Mode)& Ms.S.Sandhya, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 12/12/2024 Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri S Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

Section 132Section 153A

additions made towards difference in unsecured loan of Rs.7,51,858/-. 5. Aggrieved by the Ld.CIT(A) order, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.7,51,858/- made

Satty and Associates, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 163/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

Section 132Section 153A

Satty and Associates, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 162/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

Section 132Section 153A

Jiban Lal Shaw, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 28(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2171/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2171/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Jiban Lal Shaw,…………………….………………Appellant 34, Deshpran Sashmal Road, Tollygunge Phari, Kolkata-700033 [Pan:Fqzps9800N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………...Respondent Ward-28(1), Kolkata, 2, Gariahat Road, Kolkata-700033 Appearances By: Shri Sutosom Bhattcharyya, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 12, 2024 O R D E R

they admitted in a Hospital for Dialysis. Due to ill health of the assessee and his wife, they are unable to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal and they were also unaware of the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) passed an ex-parte order

Badri Narayanan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-2(1), Coimbatore

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

ITA 1959/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1959/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Badri Narayanan, The Income Tax Officer, A2, Aishwaryam Apartment, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward -2(1), Tansi Nagar, Coimbatore. Velachery, Chennai – 600 042. Pan: Afmpb 8640N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. N.V. Krishnan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2024

For Appellant: Ms. N.V. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 142Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54

purview of Rule 46A of I.T. Rules, 1962.” 5. Aggrieved by the CIT(A)’s order, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed two sets of paper-book, one enclosing the case laws relied on. In the other paper-book, assessee has enclosed

Mr. Waseem Ulla Khan, Tumkur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Tumkur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1956/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 115BSection 142Section 143Section 234Section 250Section 44ASection 68

Bangalore Page 6 of 9 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 Pune, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has also filed the paper book containing 168 pages. 6. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that

Shri Madvirashiv Shivogimandir Samsthe Shivogimandir, Bagalkot vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-1, Kalaburagi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1402/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Sri Ashok A. Kulkarni, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 154Section 250

with and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3.2 Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has also filed paper book containing 35 pages comprising following documents: 1. Written submissions filed before NFAC 2. Copy

ACIT 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bombay Footwear Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, all the Grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 94/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji and Shri Ajay BhandariFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 270ASection 45Section 50D

Income Tax (PCIT) in exercise of powers vested under Section 263 of the Act. The Assessee challenged the aforesaid revision order in appeal before the Tribunal [ITA No.1645/Mum/2021]. In the aforesaid appellate proceedings before the Tribunal the issue of characterization of payments received by the Assessee in terms ... Section 263 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2015-16 was quashed by the Tribunal. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced paragraph 2 above. 9. When the present appeal was taken up for hearing, the Learned Authorised Representative

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai. vs. Bennett Property Holdings Company Limited, Mumbai

ITA 557/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A(2)Section 32(1)Section 72A(2)Section 72A(4)

carry tax effect below the specified monetary of INR.60 Lacs fixed by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) for filing Departmental Appeal before the Tribunal limit. A Therefore, the appeal preferred by the Revenue should be dismissed as withdrawn in view of Circular No. 5 of 2024, dated 15/03/2024, read ... Lakhs to INR.60 Lakhs. It has also been clarified in Circular No. 9 of 2024 that the aforesaid monetary limit for filing the appeal before the Tribunal would also apply to the pending departmental appeals. 8.4. The contention advanced on behalf of the Assessee is that the Assessee has been