← 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

Sanowar Ali Khan, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 25(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1503/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271ASection 282

been no wilful or intentional default in the matter and accordingly has prayed that the delay of 193 days in submission of appeal before the Tribunal may be condoned. After perusing the same, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing ... instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Orders passed by the lower authorities are arbitrary, erroneous, without proper reasons, invalid

Mala Singh, Howrah vs. I.T.O., Ward - 47(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1317/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 69C

instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. Erroneous Assessment Order: The order passed by the AO under Section 143(3) r/w Section 144B ... accordingly, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The assessee requested for the deletion of addition made

Krishnan Rajaraman, Pondicherry vs. Radhakrishnan, Pondicherry

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3381/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3381/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: None
Section 147Section 148Section 250

notices issued by the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) upheld the order of the A.O ex-parte. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. There is a delay in filing the appeal before us and the assessee has made application ... petition of the assessee we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji

Gupta & Sons, Chennai vs. ITO- TDS Ward -1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 3368/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3368/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 201Section 250

before the FAA. Since the assessee did not respond to the notices, the FAA dismissed the appeal ex-parte. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the FAA. 3. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. During the course of hearing

Subramaniam Suresh, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward 1(6), Salem

ITA 3347/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3346 & 3347/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Years: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

notices issued by the CIT(A). Therefore the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. There is a delay of 599 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal ... material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC), we condone

Subramaniam Suresh, Namakkal vs. ITO Ward 1(6), Salem

ITA 3346/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3346 & 3347/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Years: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

notices issued by the CIT(A). Therefore the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. There is a delay of 599 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal ... material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC), we condone

Jayam Enterprises, Salem vs. Itd, Ward 1(1), Salem

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3123/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3123/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

assessee at Rs. 74,43,150/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that through ground No.3, the assessee

Anguraj Gajandhiran, Salem vs. ITO Ward 1(6), Salem

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

ITA 3122/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3122/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl. CIT
Section 148Section 250Section 264Section 69A

delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 4. There is a delay of 384 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal ... material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC), we condone

Deputy Commissioner Income Tax Non Corp Circle II Madurai, Madurai vs. Virudhunagar District Central Co Op Bank Limited, Virudhunagar

ITA 2700/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal. Against the relief so granted, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal, while the assessee has filed cross-objections. 3. The issues arising for our consideration are: Whether the deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia ... viia). These grounds are decided against the appellant. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed present appeals before the Tribunal. The learned AR has filed paper book enclosing therein the memorandum explaining provision of introduction of section 36(1)(viia

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Non Corp Circle II Madurai, Madurai vs. Virudhunagar District Central Co Op Bank Limited, Virudhunagar

ITA 2699/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.: 2699/Chny/2025 &2700/Chny/2025 By Revenue C.O.No.92/Chny/2025 (In Ita No.: 2699/Chny/2025)& C.O.No.93/Chny/2025 (In Ita No.: 2700/Chny/2025) By Assessee निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Dcit, Non Corp Circle Ii, Madurai, V.P. Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bb Kulam Madurai-625002, Madurai, Tamil Nadu (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) V. Virudhunagar District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited 104/1, Madurai Road, Kamaraj Nagar, S.O. Virudhunagar,Virudhunagar- 626001. Tamil Nadu [Pan:Aaaav 0147 N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे//Assessee By Mr. R. Prasanna Venkatesan, F.C.A. प्रत्यर्थीकी ओरसे Respondent/Revenue By Mr. Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2026 :-2-:

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal. Against the relief so granted, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal, while the assessee has filed cross-objections. 3. The issues arising for our consideration are: Whether the deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia ... viia). These grounds are decided against the appellant." 7. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed present appeals before the Tribunal. The learned AR has filed paper book enclosing therein the memorandum explaining provision of introduction :-13-: ITA 2699 & 2700 Chny

Jaimin Gautam Mehta, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT Circle 5(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7577/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 147Section 250Section 68

were filed in respect of grounds of appeal. Hence, appeal was dismissed. 10. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. It is seen that the appeal was filed after delay of 570 days from the time allowed ... facts and respectfully following the authoritative precedents cited supra, we find no reason to condone the inordinate delay of 583 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal in absence of any sufficient cause. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is not liable to be admitted. 18. The appellant is also

Jaimin Gautam Mehta, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT, Circle 5(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7576/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 147Section 250Section 68

were filed in respect of grounds of appeal. Hence, appeal was dismissed. 10. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. It is seen that the appeal was filed after delay of 570 days from the time allowed ... facts and respectfully following the authoritative precedents cited supra, we find no reason to condone the inordinate delay of 583 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal in absence of any sufficient cause. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is not liable to be admitted. 18. The appellant is also

Jaimin Gautam Mehta, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT Circle 5(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7575/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 147Section 250Section 68

were filed in respect of grounds of appeal. Hence, appeal was dismissed. 10. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. It is seen that the appeal was filed after delay of 570 days from the time allowed ... facts and respectfully following the authoritative precedents cited supra, we find no reason to condone the inordinate delay of 583 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal in absence of any sufficient cause. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is not liable to be admitted. 18. The appellant is also

Jaimin Gautam Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 5(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7574/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 147Section 250Section 68

were filed in respect of grounds of appeal. Hence, appeal was dismissed. 10. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. It is seen that the appeal was filed after delay of 570 days from the time allowed ... facts and respectfully following the authoritative precedents cited supra, we find no reason to condone the inordinate delay of 583 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal in absence of any sufficient cause. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is not liable to be admitted. 18. The appellant is also

Jaimin Gautam Mehta, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT Circle 5(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7573/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 147Section 250Section 68

were filed in respect of grounds of appeal. Hence, appeal was dismissed. 10. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. It is seen that the appeal was filed after delay of 570 days from the time allowed ... facts and respectfully following the authoritative precedents cited supra, we find no reason to condone the inordinate delay of 583 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal in absence of any sufficient cause. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is not liable to be admitted. 18. The appellant is also

Anis Abdulkadar Nakhawaji, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly

ITA 7231/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2012-13
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

thus, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. PAGE 3 ITA No. 7231/Mum/2025 ANIS AbdulkadarNakhawaji 4. The Ld. AR submitted that, there is delay of 503 days in filing the present

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Shann Jewellers, Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6389/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriito, Delhi Vs. Shann Jewellers Room No. 807, 8Th Floor, Al-60, Ground Floor, Civic Centre, Shalimar Bagh, Minto Road, New Delhi – 110 088 New Delhi – 110 002 (Pan: Aabfs1201L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh.Ved Jain, Adv. & Ms. Uma Upadhay, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

source of repayment of Rs. 2,15,02,308/-. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee explained

Rajiv Sharma, Nehru Place vs. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Appeal Centre

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4356/DEL/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalrajiv Sharma, Income Tax Officer, 307, Vishalbhawa, Nehru Place, Nafc, Delhi. Delhi-110019. Vs. Pan-Boaps6272K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Bhavesh Kumar, Ca Department By Shri Khitesh Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [‘Cit(A)’ In Short], Dated 09.06.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 12.03.2025 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The It Act For Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 29.09.2025 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.53,62,490/-. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Sale & Purchase Of Computer Parts, Laptop & All Other Accessories Relating To Software & Hardware. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & The Assessment Was Completed By The Ao Wherein The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Computed At Rs.1,09,08,972/- By Making Rajiv Sharma Vs. Ito Disallowance @ 5% Out Of Total Purchase Of Rs.10,42,56,278/- & Further Disallowance @10% Out Of The Expenses Claimed At Rs.15,86,675/- Was Made As The Assesses Failed To Make Compliance Before The Ao & Further Failed To File Any Details.

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80C

various expenses, however, allowed the deduction u/s 80C and 80D to the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking the following grounds of appeal: “The AO add income of Rs. 5371481 without considering the documentary evidence of purchase invoices

Mukut Behari Lal Bhargava, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle 3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2234/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Grover, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 80Section 80G

However, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal on both the grounds vide order dated 04.03.2025. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 2 | P a g e ITA No. 2234/DEL/2025_Mukut Behari Lal Bhargava 4. Ground No. 1: Disallowance of B/f Losses: Rs. 98,292/- [STCL

DCIT, Circle - 19(1), Delhi vs. Ramayna Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4147/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalramayna Ispat Private Limited, Dcit, A-48, 1St Floor, Wazirpur Circle-19(1), Industrial Area, Delhi-110052. Vs. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccr7382R (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Ramayna Ispat Private Limited, A-48, 1St Floor, Wazirpur Circle-19(1), New Delhi. Vs. Industrial Area, Delhi-110052. Pan-Aaccr7382R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Maneesh Upneja, Ca, Shri Baldev Raj, Ca & Ms. Sanju Kumari, Adv. Department By Shri Khitesh Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Cross Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Ld. Cit(A)] Dated 11.07.2024 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short) For Assessment Year 2018-19. Ramayna Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Ltd. Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing, Processing, Forging, Casting Mixing Of Various Kinds Of Steel, Carbon Settle, Mild Steel, Stainless Steel, High Speed Steel & Bright Steel Etc. The Return Of Income Was Revised On 28.10.2018 At An Income Of Rs.1,00,96,587/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 148 For The Reason That Assessee Has Taken Accommodation Entries Of Bogus Purchases & After Considering The Submissions Made, Ao Had Made The Addition Of Rs.5,78,99,593/- U/S 69C Of The Act Towards Unexplained Expenditure On Account Of Bogus Purchase & Further Invoked The Provisions Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act. The Ao Further Made An Addition Of Rs.3,14,795/- By Estimating The Net Profit Declared By The Assessee. Besides This Further Disallowance Of Rs.9,37,608/- Was Made Out Of Freight Expenses And, Accordingly, The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Assessed At Rs.6,87,83,788/-.

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 690Section 69C

such alleged bogus purchases and reduced the addition to Rs.23,15,984/-. 4. Against the said order, both the parties are in appeal before the Tribunal by taking the following grounds of appeal: Grounds of appeal (by Assessee) in ITA No.4138/Del/2024 “1. On the facts and in law, the order