← 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

Gold Ak, Tenkasi vs. ITO 3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly- allowed for statistical purposes as indicated against each of the issues

ITA 1051/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Smt. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

unaccounted sales of unaccounted purchases and enhancement on account of disallowance of cash payment u/s.40A(3) of the Act, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee argued that the profit estimation of gross profit directed by CIT(A) is not correct

Gold Ak, Tenkasi vs. ITO 3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly- allowed for statistical purposes as indicated against each of the issues

ITA 1050/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Smt. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

unaccounted sales of unaccounted purchases and enhancement on account of disallowance of cash payment u/s.40A(3) of the Act, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee argued that the profit estimation of gross profit directed by CIT(A) is not correct

Gold Ak, Tenkasi vs. ITO 3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly- allowed for statistical purposes as indicated against each of the issues

ITA 1049/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Smt. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

unaccounted sales of unaccounted purchases and enhancement on account of disallowance of cash payment u/s.40A(3) of the Act, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee argued that the profit estimation of gross profit directed by CIT(A) is not correct

Gold Ak, Tenkasi vs. ITO 3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly- allowed for statistical purposes as indicated against each of the issues

ITA 1048/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Smt. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

unaccounted sales of unaccounted purchases and enhancement on account of disallowance of cash payment u/s.40A(3) of the Act, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee argued that the profit estimation of gross profit directed by CIT(A) is not correct

Gold Ak, Tenkasi vs. ITO 3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly- allowed for statistical purposes as indicated against each of the issues

ITA 1047/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Smt. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

unaccounted sales of unaccounted purchases and enhancement on account of disallowance of cash payment u/s.40A(3) of the Act, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee argued that the profit estimation of gross profit directed by CIT(A) is not correct

Gold Ak, Tenkasi vs. ITO 3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly- allowed for statistical purposes as indicated against each of the issues

ITA 1046/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Smt. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

unaccounted sales of unaccounted purchases and enhancement on account of disallowance of cash payment u/s.40A(3) of the Act, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee argued that the profit estimation of gross profit directed by CIT(A) is not correct

Freight Carriers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. D. C. of Income Tax Circle 2 (1) (1), Aaykar Bhavan

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

ITA 4031/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan: A.Y : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali
Section 194C

done the above things, the Ld JCIT(A) confirmed the denial of TDS credit by CPC. Aggrieved, assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We heard the parties and perused the record. The learned AR has submitted a statement before us, as per which TDS has been deducted

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Vireet Investments Private Limited, Delhi

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

ITA 938/DEL/2024[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumaracit, Circle 17 (1) Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. 21D, Friends Colony West, New Delhi – 110 065. (Pan : Aaacv2033M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 Date Of Order : 06.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 28.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2004-05 On 31.10.2004 Declaring Income Of Rs.34,80,69,911/-. The Same Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The 2 Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) On 28.12.2004. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. In Response, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Attended From Time To Time & Submitted Relevant Information As Called For. 3. The Assessee Was Incorporated On 03.10.1983 With The Main Objects, As Per Memorandum Of Association, To Acquire & Hold Shares, Stocks, Debentures, Debenture Stocks, Bonds, Obligations & Securities Issued Or Guaranteed By Any Company Constituted Or Carried On Business In The Republic Of India. After Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee, The Assessing Officer Proceeded To Make The Following Additions In The Assessment Completed U/S 143 (3) Of The Act :-

For Appellant: Shri Manish Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 48Section 80G

first appeal the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the findings of Assessing Office. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA NO.102/PN/2012 for assessment year 2007-08 decided on 10.04.2014. The Tribunal after considering the facts of the case and the decision of Co- ordinate

Rachna Sanjay Shah, Ahmedabad vs. PCIT, Ahmedabad -1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 626/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri/St.R. Senthil Kumar & Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst.Year :2014-2015 Rachana Sanjay Shah The Pr.Cit-1 72, Tapovan Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Manekbaug Hall Ambawadi Ahmedabad 380015. Pan : Amdps 6571 P

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, AR and Shri Samir Vora, AFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

duly 9 examining the facts and after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: “1.1 The Order U/s.263 passed on 16-03-2024 by Pr.CIT.Ahmedabad-1, A'bad (for short

Maharani Wines, Nashik vs. ACIT Circle 1, Nashik

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

ITA 1511/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 69C

upheld. The grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 9. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1] The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.40,14,65,505 made

Shaik Mahammadadil, Kadapa vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kadapa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 925/HYD/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.925/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri K.Abhiroop Bhargav, ARFor Respondent: Shri AVES Madhukar, DR
Section 142(1)Section 69A

confirmed the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Against which, assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. At the outset, taking my attention to sale deed executed on 29/08/2016, learned AR submitted that assessee’s father, Shri Shaik Abdul Khader along with

Lotusdew Wealth and Investment Advisors Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle - 5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 791/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad05 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.791/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-22)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR
Section 139(1)Section 80

appeal before the learned CIT(A) and the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Against which the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal and at the outset, learned AR submitted that they have filed Form 10CCB within the due date for filing the return of income ... accordance with law and on that count dismissed the appeal. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Sutures India (P.) Ltd. [2021] 125 taxmann.com

Ratna Kumari Koppisetty, Kakinada vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

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

ITA 411/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 411/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ratna Kumari Koppisetty V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 3-11-A/3, Recharlapeta Income Tax Office, 11-11-1 3Rd Floor, Sanjivi Hospital Complex Military Colony Ramaraopeta – 533004 Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh 533001 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Asdpk7729B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 54 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] drew attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with ... filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 54 days. Therefore, the delay of 54 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned. 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that, assessee is an individual, engaged in the business as Kerosene dealers

Simhadri Naidu Samanthula, Palakonda vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward-1, Srikakulam

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

ITA 410/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.410/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Simhadri Naidu Samanthula, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Palakonda. Ward-1, Pan: Amsps2903C Srikakulam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/11/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 05/11/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

order ex-parte and dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following modified grounds of appeal: “1. The order passed U/s. 147 r.w.s 144B by the Assessment unit, IT Department, National

Sravan Kumar Traders, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 404/VIZ/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Nov 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Trough Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.404/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2023-24) Sravan Kumar Traders, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-1(1), Adafs3643N Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt. A. Aruna, Ar ""ाथ" की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of : 05/11/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. A. Aruna, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 194Q

submissions of the assessee, the Ld. Addl/ JCIT (A), dismissed the appeal of the assessee. On being aggrieved, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also

Sravan Kumar Traders, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 403/VIZ/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Nov 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Trough Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.403/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2022-23) Sravan Kumar Traders, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-1(1), Adafs3643N Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt. A. Aruna, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 05/11/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. A. Aruna, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 194Q

submissions of the assessee, the Ld. Addl/ JCIT (A), dismissed the appeal of the assessee. On being aggrieved, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also

Nita Padamchand Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-24(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3122/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "K(SMC)" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M. M. GolvalaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Pardeshi
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

vide order dated 25/04/2024, the CIT(A) disposed off the appeal as partly allowed. 4. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. 5 A.Y.2012-2013 5. We have heard both the sides and given thoughtful consideration

Rama Krishna Ramisetti, Ranga Reddy vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Nalgonda

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

ITA 850/HYD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.850/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Rama Krishna Vs. Income Tax Officer Ramisetty Ward-1 Ranga Reddy Nalgonda Pan:Ahlpr1765R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Aravindakshan, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04/11/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Aravindakshan, DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 245

Krishna Remisetti 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee referring to the dates and events including the order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act, and subsequent intimation

Shankar Reddy Enugudala, Chittoor vs. ITO., Ward-1, Madanapalle

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1014/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 1014/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Shankar Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Enugudala Ward 1 Chittoor Madanapalle, Pan:Acipe8837F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S Ganesh राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Aravindakshan, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04/11/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate S GaneshFor Respondent: : Shri Aravindakshan, DR
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 69A

cash deposits u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist and derives income from agriculture only. The assessee

Centre for Educare and Research Charitable Trust, Thiruvallur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Nagercoil

Appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2055/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2055/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Centre For Educare & Research Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Charitable Trust, Income Tax, 16-1, Avvai Farm Lane, Circle-1, Thiruvattar 629 177, Nagercoil. Kanyakumari.

For Appellant: Shri.N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ashwin D. Gowda, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 68

appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the ld. Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, the ld. Authorized Representative contended that the Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs.41,16,520/- being the cash deposits