← 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

Rajeshkumar Dhirajlal Vaya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(3)(8), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 200/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Surat22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Namita Patel, Sr DR
Section 115BSection 145(3)Section 250Section 68

addition was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is noted that the assessee has disclosed

Shyam Sunder Prasad, Vaishali vs. DCIT-Circle-1 Patna, Patna

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

ITA 494/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY (Vice President), SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Kumar Anwar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. A.H.Chowdhury, CIT-DR

lack of knowledge of passing of the ex-parte order by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, the assessee could not file the appeal before the Tribunal within the stipulated time. The assessee has also submitted that the delay has been occurred due to negligence of the counsel. Therefore, the assessee

Mr. Balu Sinnappa Waghmode, Vatfali Nandiwale Vasti vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Solapur

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Dismissed

ITA 2804/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2804/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Respondent: Assessee by Shri Aakash Parakh
Section 147Section 148Section 250

passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act. 2. Registry has pointed out that there is delay of 56 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed affidavit for condonation of delay giving the reasons. Precisely, the main reason for the delay is that the income tax matters

Warana Indusries Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1285/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: None (written submissions filed)For Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

observing as under: 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. a) In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and Legal aspects, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming

Jj709 Eguvarpalayam Paccs, Thiruvallur vs. ITO, Ward-1., Thiruvallur

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

ITA 3216/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3216/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri B. Suresh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl.CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2018-19. :- 2 -: 2. There is a delay of 73 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The Secretary of the assessee trust has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with the supporting affidavit stating therein the reasons

S 1284 Thathaiyangarpatti Paccs Ltd., Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Namakkal

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

ITA 3173/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3173/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri A. Tamilamudan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl.CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2019-20. :- 2 -: 2. There is a delay of 38 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The Secretary of the assessee trust has filed an affidavit along with petition for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated

Rcube Amalagamations, Kollukadu Medu vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Erode

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

ITA 3164/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3164/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S. Saravanan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

levied penalty u/s.271B of the Act and the CIT(A) confirmed the same. Aggrieved, now assessees are in appeal before the Tribunal. 28.2 Before us, ld.counsel for the assessee made only one statement that the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.K. Gupta

Salma Sadiq Kantharia, Mumbai vs. ITO - Ward 41(1)(4), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7403/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishsalma Sadiq Kantharia Ito-Ward 41(1)(4) A/06, 1St Floor, Shamsuddin Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, C41-43, Andheri Kurla Road, Jari Mari Kurla, Avenue 3, Near Videsh Bhavan, Mumbai-400 072 Vs. G Block, Bkc, Gilban Area, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra E, Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Andpk 5832 A (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Piyush Chhajed & Shri Ayush Chhajed Respondent By : Shri Swapnil Choudhari Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against Order Dated 27.05.2024 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2021-22. 2. Before We Proceed To Deal With The Appeal, We Notice That There Is A Delay Of 471 Days In Filing The Appeal. The Assessee Has Sought Condonation Of Delay By Furnishing An Affidavit, Explaining The Reason For Delay. It Is The Case Of The Assessee That In The Appeal Memo, In Form No. 35, The Address Of Communication Was That Of Assessee’S Tax Consultant, Ca Niranjan R Shah. However, Being An Elderly Person, Suffering From Prolonged Illness

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed &For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari

could not be complied. Therefore, the assessee not only went unrepresented before the first appellate authority, but there was delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Thus, he requested for condonation of delay. 3. Having considered rival submissions and perused the affidavit of the assessee and the other materials

Apurva Mukesh Thakkar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(2)(1) Mumbai, Kautiliya Bhavan

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

ITA 6367/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarapurva Mukesh Ito Ward 41 Thakkar (2)(1) Mumbai 11 Dr Rp Road & Ns Vs. Room No. 234 Mataji Bungalow Bldg Kautilya Bhavan Cross Road Near City C41 To C43 Block Bank Atm Mumbai Bkc Bandra East 400080 - Mumbai Mumbai 400051, Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Adspt8293K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shriparth J. Bhatt Revenue By Shrisurendra Mohan (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2026

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250

r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Condonation of Delay 2. The Registry has reported a delay of 494 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, duly supported by a sworn affidavit, explaining the circumstances leading to such delay ... assessee took steps to obtain copies of the CIT(A)’s order, sought appropriate legal advice, and thereafter proceeded to file the present appeal before the Tribunal. v. The assessee has categorically stated on oath that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate, but occurred solely due to lack

ACIT, Mumbai vs. K Raheja Corp Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6083/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Respondent: Mr. Paresh Sondagar, CA
Section 11SSection 14A

deleted both the additions. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted both the additions. 4. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by way the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by way the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds

Ganpat Harishchandra Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 5830/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishι.Τ.Α. No. 5827/Mum/2025

Section 132Section 153C

show cause notice, the AO made the additions in the respective years. The CIT(A) confirmed the additions. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The effective grievance of the assessee is against confirmation of the additions towards alleged “on-money” in respect of purchase of shop

Ganpat Harishchandra Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5829/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

Section 132Section 153C

show cause notice, the AO made the additions in the respective years. The CIT(A) confirmed the additions. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The effective grievance of the assessee is against confirmation of the additions towards alleged “on-money” in respect of purchase of shop

Ganpat Harishchandra Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 5828/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishι.Τ.Α. No. 5827/Mum/2025

Section 132Section 153C

show cause notice, the AO made the additions in the respective years. The CIT(A) confirmed the additions. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The effective grievance of the assessee is against confirmation of the additions towards alleged “on-money” in respect of purchase of shop

Ganpat Harishchandra Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC -4(2), Mumbai

ITA 5827/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishι.Τ.Α. No. 5827/Mum/2025

Section 132Section 153C

show cause notice, the AO made the additions in the respective years. The CIT(A) confirmed the additions. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The effective grievance of the assessee is against confirmation of the additions towards alleged “on-money” in respect of purchase of shop

Padmaja Rajesh Harve, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 41(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5343/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethpadmaja Rajesh Harve Vs. Acit-41(1)(1) Room No. 425, 4Th Floor, Kautilyabhavan, 1201-A, 64 Greens Building, Tagore Road, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandrakurla Santacruz West, Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400054. Mumbai -400051. Pan/Gir No:Aaxph1769E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 45Section 47Section 47ASection 54Section 54F

Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 5. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the assessee filed a paper-book enclosing various details and written submissions filed before the lower authorities. It is submitted that the ITA No.5343/MUM/2025/AY 2017-18 Padmaja

Babulal Mulchand Varma, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle-4(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3150/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Respondent: Mr. Ajay R. Singh &
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69

favour with the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is, therefore, in further T(A). The assessee is, therefore, in further appeal before the Tribunal by raising the grounds reproduced appeal before the Tribunal by raising the grounds reproduced appeal before the Tribunal by raising the grounds reproduced hereinabove. 5. Before

Babulal Mulchand Varma, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3148/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Respondent: Mr. Ajay R. Singh &
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69

favour with the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is, therefore, in further T(A). The assessee is, therefore, in further appeal before the Tribunal by raising the grounds reproduced appeal before the Tribunal by raising the grounds reproduced appeal before the Tribunal by raising the grounds reproduced hereinabove. 5. Before

Manjinder Kaur Chaniana, Nagpur vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department

ITA 6345/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Arora, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 40

reply or supporting documentary evidences, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal vide order dated 15.04.2025. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 3 | P a g e 6345_DEL_2025_Manjinder Kaur Chaniana vs Assessment Unit 5. On the date of hearing, none appeared

Ankit Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle 7, New Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 6308/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Debarshi Chakraborty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250

relief to assessee by reducing the rate of commission income to 1.25% vide appellate order dated 13.08.2025. Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 4 | P a g e 6308_6341_DEL_2025_Ankit Jain vs ACIT 4. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that the statement

Ruchi Jain, Panipat vs. Assessing Officer, Panipat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6278/DEL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

capital was more than the interest free loans and advances given to M/s Jainsons Exports. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. From the copy of ledger accounts of M/s Jainsons Exports reproduced