“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

Home Credit International A.S., Czech Republic vs. Assistantdeputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation, Gurgaon Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3846/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 153Section 282

passed by the Ld. AO completing the assessment at an income of Rs. 1,27,37,70,864/-. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ld. AR has submitted that the issues involved are the same as in A.Y. 2020- 21 and the Ld. DRP has also

Praveen Sanjiv, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-7(3), Chennai

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

ITA 3834/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3834/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Praveen Sanjiv, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 45, W Block, 7Th Street, Anna Non Corporate Ward 7(3), Nagar, Chennai 600 040. Chennai. [Pan: Fzzps0216R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.12.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Ground No. 1 Raised By The Assessee Is General In Nature & Requires No Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. CIT

Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

under section 251(1)(a) of the Act. As aggrieved by the said order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR Shri D. Anand, Advocate submits that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC failed to adjudicate merits of the addition under

Sharp Garuda Farm Equipments Pvt.Ltd, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 3394/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. T.Mythili, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(8)Section 274Section 37

case and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The grounds raised read as follows:- :- 5 -: 1. The impugned order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) confirming

Kanaka Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., Hosadurga vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-2, Chitradurga

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

ITA 2915/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Girish T.L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

wherein the claim of the assessee was rejected and the said order has attained finality as the assessee did not prefer any further appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, the assessee cannot now reopen the said issue in the present proceedings which arise only from the order giving effect ... undisputed fact that against the aforesaid order dated 22.06.2017 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not prefer any further appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) holding that the said interest income is not eligible for deduction

A V Jewellers, Chandigarh vs. ITO, Chandigarh, Aayakar Bhawan

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

ITA 352/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 352/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 A V Jewellers, Vs The Ito, Scf 22, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaffa7591K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca & Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2026 Physical Hearing O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing : 19.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 17.03.2026 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 14.01.2025 passed for assessment year

Mr. Sharafat Sohrab Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 26(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 8014/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Sharafat Sohrab Shaikh Vs Income Tax Officer, Room No. 1210, Sangam Ward 26(3)(2), Nagar, Chikhalwadi Saltpent Mumbai Road, Antop Hill Wadala East, Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400037 (Pan: Bfbps0696P) Appellant Respondent Present For: Assessee By : Shri Sachin Dere, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Pradipsinh Saktavat, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1058553234(1) Dated 07.12.2023 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ward 26(3)(2), Mumbai, U/S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 23.12.2019 For Ay 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Appellant By Way Of The Aforesaid Appeal Is Challenging The Legality & Validity Of The Impugned Order Dated 7Th December, 2023 Passed By The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department For A.Y.: 2017-2018. 2 Sharafat Sohrab Shaikh Ay 2017-18 2. The Appellant Is Actively Involved In The Operation & Management Of A Grahak Seva Kendra (Customer Service Center), Which Is Provided By M/S. Vakrangee Limited To The Eligible Candidate Who Meets The Prescribed Eligibility Criteria Set Forth By The Company. The Said M/S. Vakrangi Limited Has Issued The Appellant Official Certification To Carry Out & Run The Grahak Seva Kendra & Its Activities As Per The Terms & Conditions Decided By The Said M/S. Vakrangi Limited.

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Dere, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradipsinh Saktavat, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 69A

conditions decided by the said M/s. Vakrangi Limited. 3. At the outset, Registry has noted delay of 638 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal, for which an affidavit along with petition for condonation of the delay is placed on record. First appellate order is dated

Sahyadri Adivasi Bahuvidh Seva Sangh, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption, Thane

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

ITA 2466/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Sahyadri Adivasi Bahuvidh Income Tax Officer, Seva Sangh Exemption, Savarkar Road, Opp. S.T Mumbai Johns High School. Vs. Thane (West), Mumbai - 400601 (Pan: Aadts9375D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Suhas P. Bora, Ca Revenue : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Addl./Jcit (A)-2, Surat, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1072463266(1), Dated 23.01.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Thane, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 25.12.2018, For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. Bora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR

Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

under the relevant provisions of the Act. 3. There is a delay of 96 days noted by the Registry in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal, for which petition of condonation of delay along with affidavit is placed on record. 3.1. We have considered the petition for condonation

Alok Khatua, Cuttack vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 154/CTK/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 Alok Khatua, Cuttack Ito, Ward-1(1), Cuttack Vs Madhupur, Belagachhia, Baranga, Cuttack-754005. (Pan: Eeypk6293H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Sarangi & Bishwa Jyoti Pattnaik, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148A

No.721/CTK/2025, wherein on identical issue the Tribunal has held as under: “2. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that in the present appeal before the Tribunal the assessee is challenging the original assessment order itself insofar as the reopening is invalid. It was submission that the notice issued u/s.148A

Shimla Hills Construction, Shimla vs. DCIT, Central Circle Shimla, Shimla

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 231/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 231/Chd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shimla Hills Construction, The Dcit, Village Kot, Po-Junga, Vs Central Circle, Tehsil & Distt. Shimla. Shimla. "ायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Absfs7322L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate With Shri Besar Singh Verma, Advocate & Shri Aman Singhi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Abhishek Pal Garg, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2026

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Besar Singh Verma, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Abhishek Pal Garg, CIT DR

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Date of Hearing : 09.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 16.03.2026 VIRTUAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 23.12.2024 passed for assessment year

Mittal Rice & General Industries, Ambala City vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4 Ambala, Amabala Cant

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1421/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1421/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mittal Rice & General Industries, The Ito, Hissar Road, Ambala City. Vs Ward – 4, Ambala. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadfm9229N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2026

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)

Date of Hearing : 17.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 16.03.2026 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 18.09.2025 passed for assessment year

Jatinder Singh, Yamunanagar, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Yamuna Nagar Haryana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 781/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 781/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Jatinder Singh, The Ito, House No. 8, Vidya Nagar, Vs Ward – 3, Govind Puri Road, Yamunanagar. Yamuna Nagar. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aezps1176G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.M. Monga & Shri Rohit Kaura, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2026

For Appellant: Shri B.M. Monga & Shri Rohit Kaura, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 148

Date of Hearing : 19.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 16.03.2026 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 20.05.2024 passed for assessment year

ACIT-17(1), Mumbai vs. Sunil Giridhar Raheja HUF, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7560/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Arun Khodpia ()

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 68

appeal are allowed and the addition is directed to be deleted.” Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.AO received specific information that the assessee received Rs. 25,00,000/- from M/s. Sampada Chemicals

Maheswari Panchayat Balod, Balod vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 140/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.137, 138, 139 & 140/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Maheshwari Panchayat Balod Rajnandgaon, Balod, Chhattisgarh-491 226 Pan: Aaaam7320E

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 154(7)

order in the subsequent paragraphs. 3. Coming to the appeal in ITA No.137/RPR/2026 for A.Y.2013-14, there is delay of 12 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Sr. DR confirmed the same and this fact of delay is established from Form 36. That ... identical and similar as were there in ITA No.137/RPR/2026 for A.Y.2013-14. In this case, there is delay of 24 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal and the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal of the assessee while not condoning the delay of 9 years by the assessee

Maheswari Panchayat Balod, Balod vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 139/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 154(7)

Maheswari Panchayat Balod, Balod vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 138/RPR/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 154(7)

Maheswari Panchayat Balod, Balod vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 137/RPR/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 154(7)

Nirupam Acharjee, Silchar vs. Income Tax Officer. Ward-1, Silchar

ITA 381/GTY/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shriduvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL `GAUHATI BENCH', GUWAHATI BEFORE SHRIDUVVURU RL REDDY, VP AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA

Dugginnigari Subramaniyam Naidu, Tirupati vs. ACIT., Circle - 1(1), Tirupati

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

ITA 1443/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. AO.

Section 133(6)Section 68

result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.” 7. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.A. submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining additions made

Granules India Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1289/HYD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.1289/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) Granules India Limited Vs. Dcit- Circle -2(1) 15Th Floor, Granules Tower Signature Tower, Botanical Garden Road Sy. No. 6(P) Of Kondaput Kondapur, Hyderabad – 500084 Sy. No. 37 Of Kothaguda Telangana Opp. Botanical Gardens Serilingampalluy, R.R. District Pan: Aaacg7369K Hyderabad-500084, Telangana (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

assessee and upheld the additions made by the A.O. 11. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee now is in appeal before the Tribunal. 12. Learned counsel for the assessee, Shri Y.V.Bhanu Narayan Rao, CA, submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in upholding the reopening

Lagusari Pedda Sunakanna, Kurnool vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1172/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

Section 69A

Lagusari Peddasunkanna vs. DCIT 2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 78 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay ... lack of familiarity with the legal procedures, the assessee required time to consult an appropriate tax consultant for the purpose of filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate, but occurred due to bona fide reasons