← 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Akola Circle, Akola vs. Shri Ramkisan Natha Darade, Buldhana

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 388/NAG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

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

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

allowed.” Shri Ramkisan Natha Darade ITA no.388/Nag./2019 The Revenue being aggrieved by the order so passed by the learned CIT(A), filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued that the order passed by the learned CIT(A) be and the addition

Miss Fatema Shoeb Hussain, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward- 2(4), Nagpur

ITA 69/NAG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Fatema Shoeb) is the defacto owner of Maria Construction. Being dissatisfied with the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee further filed appeal before the Tribunal on the following grounds:– “1] Learned A.O. erred in reopening the assessment of the assessee for A.Y.2004-05 by issue of notice U/s.148 ... Fatema Shoeb Hussain A.Y. 2004–05, 2005–06, 2006–07, 2007–08 & 2008–09 the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 15. Before us, the learned A.R. produced a detailed Paper Book wherein he has drawn attention to certain Power of Attorney executed

Miss Fatema Shoeb Hussain, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward- 2(4), Nagpur

ITA 68/NAG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Fatema Shoeb) is the defacto owner of Maria Construction. Being dissatisfied with the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee further filed appeal before the Tribunal on the following grounds:– “1] Learned A.O. erred in reopening the assessment of the assessee for A.Y.2004-05 by issue of notice U/s.148 ... Fatema Shoeb Hussain A.Y. 2004–05, 2005–06, 2006–07, 2007–08 & 2008–09 the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 15. Before us, the learned A.R. produced a detailed Paper Book wherein he has drawn attention to certain Power of Attorney executed

M/S. Fatema Shoeb Hussain, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward- 2(4), Nagpur

ITA 67/NAG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Fatema Shoeb) is the defacto owner of Maria Construction. Being dissatisfied with the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee further filed appeal before the Tribunal on the following grounds:– “1] Learned A.O. erred in reopening the assessment of the assessee for A.Y.2004-05 by issue of notice U/s.148 ... Fatema Shoeb Hussain A.Y. 2004–05, 2005–06, 2006–07, 2007–08 & 2008–09 the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 15. Before us, the learned A.R. produced a detailed Paper Book wherein he has drawn attention to certain Power of Attorney executed

M/S. Fatema Shoeb Hussain, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward- 2(4), Nagpur

ITA 66/NAG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Fatema Shoeb) is the defacto owner of Maria Construction. Being dissatisfied with the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee further filed appeal before the Tribunal on the following grounds:– “1] Learned A.O. erred in reopening the assessment of the assessee for A.Y.2004-05 by issue of notice U/s.148 ... Fatema Shoeb Hussain A.Y. 2004–05, 2005–06, 2006–07, 2007–08 & 2008–09 the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 15. Before us, the learned A.R. produced a detailed Paper Book wherein he has drawn attention to certain Power of Attorney executed

M/S. Fatema Shoeb Hussain, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward- 2(4), Nagpur

ITA 65/NAG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Fatema Shoeb) is the defacto owner of Maria Construction. Being dissatisfied with the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee further filed appeal before the Tribunal on the following grounds:– “1] Learned A.O. erred in reopening the assessment of the assessee for A.Y.2004-05 by issue of notice U/s.148 ... Fatema Shoeb Hussain A.Y. 2004–05, 2005–06, 2006–07, 2007–08 & 2008–09 the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 15. Before us, the learned A.R. produced a detailed Paper Book wherein he has drawn attention to certain Power of Attorney executed

M/S. Fatema Shoeb Hussain, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward- 2(4), Nagpur

ITA 64/NAG/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Fatema Shoeb) is the defacto owner of Maria Construction. Being dissatisfied with the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee further filed appeal before the Tribunal on the following grounds:– “1] Learned A.O. erred in reopening the assessment of the assessee for A.Y.2004-05 by issue of notice U/s.148 ... Fatema Shoeb Hussain A.Y. 2004–05, 2005–06, 2006–07, 2007–08 & 2008–09 the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 15. Before us, the learned A.R. produced a detailed Paper Book wherein he has drawn attention to certain Power of Attorney executed

Mansoor Basha Court, Adoni vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Adoni

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

ITA 747/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.747/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Mansoor Basha Court Vs. Income Tax Officer Adoni Ward 1 Pan:Amwpc4315J Adoni (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Shashank Dundu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S.P.G. Mudaliar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 02/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Dundu, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri S.P.G. Mudaliar, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271A

Officer u/s 271AAC(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Page 2 of 4 ITA 747 of 2024 Mansoor Basha Court 5. I have heard both the parties, perused the material available

Mansoor Basha Court, Adoni vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Adoni

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

ITA 746/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.746/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Mansoor Basha Court Vs. Income Tax Officer Adoni Ward 1 Pan:Amwpc4315J Adoni (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Shashank Dundu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S.P.G. Mudaliar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 02/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Dundu, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri S.P.G. Mudaliar, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 270A

Assessing Officer u/s 270A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below

Somasundaram Vijaya Kumar, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

ITA 744/HYD/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Sept 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 744/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Somasundaram Vijay Vs. Income Tax Officer Kumar Ward 4)1) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bympk9364A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Vishnu Teja L, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 02/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Teja L, CAFor Respondent: : Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, DR

Section 139Section 141Section 143(3)Section 147

made by the Assessing Officer towards disallowance of expenses of transfer and cost of acquisition. 4. The assessee carried the matter in further appeal before the Tribunal and the ITAT vide order dated 22.01.2020 in ITA No.1289/Hyd/2019 set aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for further ... Somasundaram Vijay Kumar 6. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT (A) is erred in directing the Assessing Officer to adopt average rate of Rs.380/sft without appreciating

Gautham Kumar Sunkata, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 742/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.742/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Shri Gautam Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Sunkata, Ward 4(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Cfwps7723F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 02/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: : Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 194HSection 249(2)Section 270ASection 40a

appeal filed by the assessee without condoning the delay. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. I have gone through the orders of the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A). According to the learned

Rupa Latha Palle, Kurnool vs. ITO., Ward-10(5), Hyderabad

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

ITA 740/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.740/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rup Latha Palle Vs. Income Tax Officer Kurnool Ward 10(5) Pan:Bsepp7160F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri R Rajasekhar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 02/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri R Rajasekhar, CAFor Respondent: : Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, DR

cash deposits in a cryptic order without any discussion. 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 submitted that the learned CIT (A) is erred in sustaining the addition made by the Assessing

Srivastsa Sai Karthik Kammiti, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-4(4), Hyerabad

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

ITA 739/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 739/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Srivastsa Sai Karthik Vs. Income Tax Officer Kammiti Ward 4(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Dwupk9471C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Shashank Dundu, Adv. राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri K.N. Suresh Babu,Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 02/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Dundu, AdvFor Respondent: : Shri K.N. Suresh Babu,DR

Section 144Section 69A

deposits u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT (A) is erred in sustaining the addition made by the Assessing

Mamillapalli Bhajannarayana Murthy, Khammam vs. ITO., Ward-1, Khammam

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

ITA 656/HYD/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Sept 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.656/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Mamillapalli Vs. Income Tax Officer Bhajannarayana Murthy Ward-1 Khammam Khammam Pan:Atgpm1396L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Assessee राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 02/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: AssesseeFor Respondent: : Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, DR

Officer towards estimation of 4% profit on cash deposits. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. There

The W.B State Co-Op Agri and Rural Development Bank Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-32/ Kolkata., Kolkata

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

ITA 1321/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 The W.B. State Co-Op. Agri & Assistant Commissioner Of Rural Development Bank Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-32, Vs 25D, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata. Kolkata-700017. (Pan: Aaajt0468K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Palas Chattopadhya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

against section 68 invoked by the Ld. AO. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the order

Pasura Subbaiah Muthanna, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1407/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri. Pasura Subbaiah Muthanna, Vs. Ito, 329, 5Th C Cross, Arakere Mico Layout, Ward – 4(3)(1), 1St Stage Near Samadhana, Bengaluru. Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aigpm 2581 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K Kiran Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2024

For Appellant: Shri. K Kiran Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

result, the appeal is partly allowed.” Page 4 of 6 5. Aggrieved by the FAA’s Order, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the CIT(A) that estimation is to be adopted at 8% since for Assessment Years

Vision Infpro India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax -8(3)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 3027/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Meena, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 56(2)(viib)

orders of the Assessing Officer. Thus, the ground of appeal raised by the appellant is dismissed.” 3. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. There is a delay of 39 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed a condonation petition in this regard. Having ... 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

ACIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Veer Energy and Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1885/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Meena, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 133(6)

contracting charges – Rs. 6,08,13,844/-. 3. On further appeal the CIT(A) deleted the additions and the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). Addition towards bogus purchases 4. During the course assessment in order to verify the genuineness

Raj Mani Yadav, Lucknow vs. ITO-3(3), Lucknow

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

ITA 382/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Raj Mani Yadav V. The Income Tax Officer 3(3) D-124, Harihar Nagar Lucknow Indira Nagar, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Bcopr2293D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07 08 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 08 2024 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.10.2023, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Salaried Person, E-Filed His Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017-18 On 1.8.2017, Declaring A Total Taxable Income Of Rs.2,87,850/-. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass & The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment, Assessing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.19,45,850/- By Making Addition Under Section 69A Read With Section 115Bbe Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) At Rs.16,58,000/- On Account Of Unexplained Cash Deposited During Demonetization. 3. Aggrieved, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Under Section 246A Of The Act Before The Ld. Cit(A), Lucknow-1 On 18.12.2019. Later On, The Appeal Migrated To Nfac, Who Vide Its

For Appellant: None (Adjournment application)For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 115BSection 246ASection 69A

seen from the record that the present appeal has been filed belated and there is a delay of 159 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has submitted a petition for condonation of delay along with an Affidavit citing the reason for delay as ‘non-service

Kashmiri Lal, Kanpur vs. ITO Ward-2(2), Kanpur

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

ITA 293/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2013-14 Kashmiri Lal V. The Ito 126/33, Block Q Ward 2(2) Govind Nagar Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Asarpl8577C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 08 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54F

appeal stating therein that the assessee handed over the order of the first Appellate Authority to the Counsel’s office for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. However, the Office Assistant kept the order in a folder which got tied up with other set of files and got bundled with