← 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

Indo-Mim Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 596/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.595 596/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Indo-Mim Ltd Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 2(1) Pan:Aabci0484L Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/08/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

INDO MIM LTD 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 upholding the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards disallowance on contributions

Anish Puskur, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the for both the A

ITA 405/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.404 & 405/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Sessment Year: 2016-17 & 2018-19) Shri Anish Puskur Vs. Asstt C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Becpp1231B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/08/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 139(1)Section 153C

Multiplan India (P) Ltd (38 ITD 320). 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Admittedly, the assessee

Anish Puskur, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the for both the A

ITA 404/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.404 & 405/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Sessment Year: 2016-17 & 2018-19) Shri Anish Puskur Vs. Asstt C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Becpp1231B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/08/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 139(1)Section 153C

Multiplan India (P) Ltd (38 ITD 320). 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Admittedly, the assessee

Aet Laboratories Private Limited, Medak vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 963/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.963/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Aet Laboratories (P) Ltd Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Medak Circle 8(1) Pan:Aadcm6591L Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/08/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri A Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 10B

eligible profit u/s 10B 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 learned CIT (A) is erred in upholding re-computation of exemption

Onkar Society for Engineering & Technological, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 2, Durgapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 815/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargshri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ba)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 263

with the provisions of the Act as discussed above. 5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(E), the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that

Sri Ram Commercial Co., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-36(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 785/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Garg, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 10(34)Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 234BSection 250

lakhs was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved with the order of the Addl./Jt.CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the facts of the case. During the course of the appeal, the assessee

Mrs Suchitra Sengupta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 49(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 771/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: B.B. Payra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Raja Sengupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 50C

Appellant is aggrieved with the Penalty Order passed by the Assessment Unit u/s. 272A (1)(d) of the IT. Act 1961; hence this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. During the course of the appeal, the Ld. AR filed a paper book containing the history of the case

M/S. Bandhan Bank Ltd. (Erstwhile Ghosh Finance Ltd), Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-5(1), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 465/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Biswanath Paul, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhro Das, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 17(2)(vi)Section 192Section 250Section 37

enter into the merits of the claim. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the rival contention and gone through the submissions filed during the course of the hearing before us. Before

Arora Brothers Fashions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Ward 12(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed as being without merit

ITA 1211/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel
Section 147

being satisfied by the partial relief granted by the CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal seeking deletion of the disallowances to the extent confirmed by the CIT(A), while the Revenue has preferred appeal against the order of CIT(A) restricted the disallowance of bogus purchases

Income Tax Officer-12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Arora Brothers Fashions Private Limited, Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed as being without merit

ITA 1011/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel
Section 147

being satisfied by the partial relief granted by the CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal seeking deletion of the disallowances to the extent confirmed by the CIT(A), while the Revenue has preferred appeal against the order of CIT(A) restricted the disallowance of bogus purchases

Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai Suburban vs. Additional /Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

ITA 4156/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 2(15)

further appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the AO. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). Violation of section 13(1)(d) of the Act 5. The AO held that any income of the arising out of the investments

Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai Suburban vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

ITA 4154/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 2(15)

further appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the AO. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). Violation of section 13(1)(d) of the Act 5. The AO held that any income of the arising out of the investments

Chheda Specialities Foods Private Limited, Kandivali West, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 12 (1)-4, Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate

ITA 2493/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri H M Bhatt
Section 143(3)

Appellant. Thus, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal vide order dated 16/05/2023. 6. Being aggrieved the Appellant has now prefer the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. 7. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the Learned Authorized Representative for the Appellant

Prahladbhai Dahyabhai Patel L/H. of Late Dahyabhai Ishwarbhai Patel, Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Patan

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 352/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 352/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Prahladbhai Dahyabhai Patel, L/H Of Late Shri Dahyabhai The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ishwarbhai Patel, Ward-1, At Pirojpura, Post Sardarpura, Patan Taluko Vijapur, Mehsana Pan : Atjpp 7158 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त्यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा" रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Parin Shah, Ar "#थ% की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr DR
Section 115BSection 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 69A

outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 59 days on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an affidavit dated 29.07.2024 seeking condonation of the said delay on the following grounds:- “I. Prahladbhai Dahyabhai Patel ... satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for the delay of 59 days on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and even learned DR has not raised any material objection in this regard. We, therefore, condone the said delay and proceed to dispose

Nata Raja Traders, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 270/VIZ/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.270/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2022-23) Nata Raja Traders, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-1(1), Pan: Aaefn2642P 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 : 14/08/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 23/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. A. Aruna, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 194QSection 249(2)

section 249(2) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad, the assessee is in 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

Kanaka Mahalakshmi Chillies Traders, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 269/VIZ/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.269/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2023-24) Kanaka Mahalakshmi Chillies Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Traders, Ward-2(1), Guntur. Guntur. Pan:Aapfk8516Q (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 : 14/08/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 23/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

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

assessee, the Ld. Addl/ JCIT (A), partly allowed 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 the law applicable

Subba Rao Angirekula, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada

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

ITA 244/VIZ/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.244/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Subba Rao Angirekula, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada. Ward-2(3), Pan: Autpa2480M Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Sandhya Samudrala, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/08/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 23/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Sandhya Samudrala, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 144Section 148Section 50C

outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 03 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. With respect to belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed petition for condonation of delay along with the affidavit and the relevant paras of the affidavit is extracted herein below ... appropriate orders granting relief as prayed for.” 3. On perusal of the explanation given by the assessee with respect to filing of the appeal before the Tribunal beyond the prescribed time limit, I find that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause to file the appeal within

Ravi Kumar Enantala, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(4), Vijayawada

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

ITA 168/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.168/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ravikumar Enantala, Vs. Income Tax Officer, D.No. 74-1-22/1, Ward-2(4), Yrl Complex, Mg Road, Vijayawada. Patamata, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh – 520007. Pan: Aadpe9027C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 23/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 271ASection 69A

ground of appeal is dismissed. ……..” 6. 5 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the orders passed U/s. 144 of the act dated

Jagdish Chand, Kurukshetra vs. Income Tax Officer, Kurukshetra

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

ITA 229/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 229/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Jagdish Chand, Vs. The Ito, बनाम Vpo Sarsa, Pehowa, Kurukshetra Kurukshetra 136128 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahlpc3027H अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri B.M. Monga, Advocate & Shri Rohit Kaura, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Danish Abdullah, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2024 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri B.M. Monga, Advocate and Shri Rohit Kaura, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Danish Abdullah, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

have considered the issue and contents of the affidavit and we find that Assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and, therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and we proceed to decide the appeal on merits. 6. At the very outset

Ravindrabhai Lakshmanrav Mane, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-5(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(SS)A No

ITA 140/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

A.Ys. 2015-16 Page No 3 Ravindrabhai Lakshmanrav Mane vs. ITO non-communication by the former Tax Consultant, the assessee filed the quantum appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 326 days and Penalty appeals with a delay of 1 day. The assessee further stated he paid the appropriate ... absence of any details, this Ground no.4 is liable to be deleted. 11. Ground No.5 is to condone the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal, which is already condoned in Paragraph 6 to 6.4 of this order. 12. Ground No.6 is General in nature which does not require