← 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

Citizen Credit Co.Operative Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS)-1(1)(4), Mumbai

ITA 6035/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 2(19)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

upheld and the appeal of the appellant was dismissed. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned authorized representative (Id. AR) of the assessee filed paper books, enclosing various details and documents submitted before the lower authorities. He also filed

ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Essar Power Gujarat Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4353/MUM/2025[2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 147Section 254

directedthe AO/TPO to deletethe addition/ adjustment. Aggrieved by the order of ld CIT (A) the Revenue has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 9. We have heard the submission of Ld. CIT- DR for Revenue and the Ld. AR of the assessee. The Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue supported

ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Essar Power Gujarat Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4352/MUM/2025[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 147Section 254

directedthe AO/TPO to deletethe addition/ adjustment. Aggrieved by the order of ld CIT (A) the Revenue has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 9. We have heard the submission of Ld. CIT- DR for Revenue and the Ld. AR of the assessee. The Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue supported

Maharashtra Corporation Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4146/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69C

Condonation of Delay 2. At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 169 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal, as pointed out by the Registry. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay, duly sworn by the Director of the assessee company

Vimla Devi Thakran, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8305/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vimla Devi Thakran, Vs. Income Tax Officer, I Tower, Ea-8, 6Th Floor, Tata Ward -43(2), Primanti, South City-Ii, New Delhi Sector-72, Gurgaon Pan: Agfpt4774R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. S.K. Wadhwa, Ca Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

afresh after making requisite enquiries and proper verification with regard to taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest

Mahender, Huda Colony, Hansi vs. Income Tax Ward-1, Hisar, Aayakar Bhawan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8139/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

afresh after making requisite enquiries and proper verification with regard to taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest

Veer Kunwar Singh Foundation, Delhi vs. CIT (Exemption), Delhi

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

ITA 6267/DEL/2025[AY2023-24 TO AY2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2026

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

For Appellant: Shri Manohar Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 80G

regarding genuineness of the activities, its charitable objects etc, the application was rejected vide order dated 09.09.2025. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) to enable

Veer Kunwar Singh Foundation, Delhi vs. CIT (Exemption), Delhi

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

ITA 6266/DEL/2025[AY2023-24 TO AY2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2026

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

For Appellant: Shri Manohar Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 80G

regarding genuineness of the activities, its charitable objects etc, the application was rejected vide order dated 09.09.2025. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) to enable

Centre for General Education Society, Ghaziabad vs. CIT(Exemption), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2423/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhricentre For General Vs. Cit Exemption Education Society, Lucknow A-16, Site-3, Merrut Road Upside Indl. Area, Ghaziabad (Pan: Aaatc8262G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. & Govind Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Jitender Singh, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: S/Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. & Govind Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 10Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

pass fresh assessment order, after obtaining a detailed reply and examination of the details as above. 4. Aggrieved, assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted from the above details that

Dr. Virendra Swaroop Educational Foundation, Kanpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 211/DDN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun16 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2023-24] Dr. Virendra Swaroop Vs Acit Educational Foundation Central Circle 15/96, Civil Lines, Kanpur Dehradun Uttar Pradesh-208001 Pan-Aaajd0224D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. Shri Rajiv Sahni, Ca Shri Sumit Lal Chandanim, Adv. Shri Shivam Yadav, Adv. & Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.09.2025 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Kanpur [“Pcit”] Passed U/S 12(Ab)(4)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961[“The Act”] Cancelling The Registration Granted U/S 12A Of The Act From Assessment Year 2023-24 & Onwards.

Section 11Section 12Section 127Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 132Section 143(3)

clause (ii) of sec. 12AB(4) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. Pr. CIT, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated

Atul Kumar Agrawal, Manpur Road, Kashipur vs. National E-Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 19/DDN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Mr. Atul Kumar Agarwal Vs National Prop.M/S. R.K. Industries, E-Assessment Centre, Manpur Road, Kashipur, New Delhi U.S. Nagar, Uttarakhand- 244713 Pan-Aaopa9970H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Deepak Joshi,Adv. & Shri Rudra Pratab, Adv. Revenue By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.12.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10235798 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 15.03.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 15.08.2018, Declaring Total Income At Inr 5,81,560/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Re-Opened U/S 147 Of The Act. Accordingly, Notice U/S 148 Was Issued On 30.03.2022, In Response To Which The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 03.05.2022, Declaring Same Income As Was Declared In The Return Filed U/S 139(1) Of The Act. Thereafter Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued Followed By Notices U/S 142(1) Alongwith Questionnaires. In Response Filed Replies From Time To Time. After Considering The Submissions Made By The Assessee, Ao Completed The Assessment Vide Order Dated 15.03.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Wherein The Total Income Was Assessed At Inr 54,23,320/-.

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

vide order dated 04.12.2024, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the appellant is engaged in the business of ‘Rice Milling', i.e. manufacturing of Rice, Rice Bran

Cooperative Cane Deve. Union, Ltd., Haridwar vs. ITO, W- 1(3)(1), Haridwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 158/DDN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun16 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year: 2019-20] Co-Operative Cane Development Vs Ito Union Limited, Jawalapur, Ward-1(3)(1) Vill. & P.O. Jawalapur, Distt.- Haridwar Haridwar, Uttarakhand-249407 Uttarakhand Pan-Aaaic0152B Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.07.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2018-19/10076885 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Intimation Order Dated 02.12.2020 Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Assessee Filed The Letter & Stated That The Written Submission Made Be Considered. Therefore, Ld. Sr. Dr Was Heard & Proceeded To Decide The Appeal Filed By The Assessee On The Basis Of Material Available On Record. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Co-Operative Society Constituted By The State Government, Engaged In The Business Of Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members Who Are Agriculturists & Cane Growers Also, Marketing Of Agricultural Products & Purchase Of Agricultural Implements & Other Products Like Fertilizers, Insecticides Etc. Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.08.2019, Declaring Total Income At Nil & Claimed Deduction U/S 80P Of Inr 1,04,54,668/-. Thereafter, The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(1), Assessed Total Income At Inr 1,04,54,668/- Where Deduction U/S 80P Was Not Provided To The Assessee Society.

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P

vide order dated 26.07.2024, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- i. “The order of the Id. appellate authority is base on wrong facts in as much

Jignesh Narendrabhai Mandaliya, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 874/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh Parekh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 250

assessee, about passing the ex-parte order by ld. CIT(A) and as a result, the delay of 104 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal had arisen, which may be condoned in the interest of justice. ITA No. 874/Rjt/2025 A.Y 19-20 Jignesh N Mandaliya 4. However ... received the order of Ld.CIT(A) but could not inform the assessee, on time, therefore, delay of 104 days occurred in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Because of the mistake on the part of previous tax consultant, the assessee should not be penalized. Therefore, I note that delay

Rakesh Kumar Singh, Patna vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Patna

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 478/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: The Cit(A). However, The Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal On The Ground Of Delay Without Condoning The Same & Without Adjudicating The Issues On Merits.

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

appeal on the ground of delay without condoning the same and without adjudicating the issues on merits. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the time of the hearing the learned AR submitted that the reassessment proceedings themselves are bad in law as the assessee

Lal Babu Prasad, Siwan vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Muzaffarpur

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

ITA 317/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 250Section 43B

dismissed the appeal ex parte due to non-compliance, without adjudicating the issues on merits. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The learned AR submitted that the assessment involved multiple factual issues relating to stock discrepancy, trade creditors, unrecorded purchases and statutory disallowances

Chanchal Kumar, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (4), Patna

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

ITA 241/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.241/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Chanchal Kumar……………………………… …………………....Appellant S/O Sharma Nand Singh, Chak Musallahpur, Chai Tola Gali, Near Cooperative Bank, Mahendru, Patna, Bihar- 800006.. [Pan: Cenpk3190J] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(4), Patna…….…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vishal Kr. Adv. Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manab Advak, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 13, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.07.2023 Passed By The Cit(A)-3, Patna U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Did Not File Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration & The Case Was Reopened U/S 147. The Assessing Officer Completed Assessment U/S 143 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act By Making Addition Of Rs.81,66,750/- On Account Of Long Term Capital Gain.

Section 143Section 147Section 250

dismissed for non- prosecution, as the assessee failed to appear or effectively represent its case. 4. The assessee has now preferred an appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 590 days. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay, explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering

Kuvargiri Hiragiri Gosai, Junagadh vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

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

ITA 2120/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra Kamblekuvar Giri Hiragiri Gosai The Income Tax Vs. Panch Dash Nam Juna Akhada Officer, Thana Pati Kuvar Bharthi Ward-1 (2), Guru Shri Indra Bharthi Bhavnagar – 364 002 Junagadh – 362 001

For Appellant: Shri P.B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: -None-
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 69A

been filed. wherein, it has been deposed by the assessee that his Tax Consultant had assigned the task of preparing and filling the appeal before the Tribunal, but could not file the appeal in time due to Diwali vacation. Non-filing of the appeal was on account of reasons behind

Alang Steel Recycling Private Limited, Bhavnagar vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1605/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalalang Steel Recycling The Pr. Cit-1, Private Limited Vs. Ahmedabad – 380 015 Ground Floor, Shop No.G-1 Sukun-1, Bhilwara Circle Bhavnagar – 364 001 [ Pan: Aamca 4837 A ] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue Represented By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr 08.12.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026

Section 263Section 37Section 69C

consultant accessed the portal after obtaining the credentials from the erstwhile Chief Accountant, whereafter immediate steps were taken to file the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Having regard to the reasons stated in the application and affidavit, and there being nothing on record to suggest that the delay was deliberate

Alang Steel Recycling Private Limited, Bhavnagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Bhavnagar

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1604/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalalang Steel Recycling The Dy. Cit-1, Private Limited Vs. Circle-1, Ground Floor, Bhavnagar – 364 001 Shop No.G-1 Sukun-1, Bhilwara Circle Bhavnagar – 364 001 [ Pan: Aamca 4837 A ] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue Represented By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr 08.12.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026

Section 147Section 234ASection 270ASection 37

portal after obtaining the credentials from the erstwhile Chief Accountant, whereafter immediate steps were taken to seek professional advice and to file the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The reasons stated in the affidavit are supported by surrounding circumstances and there is nothing on record to suggest that the delay

Sunil Vasantrao Chokakkar, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Kudal

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

ITA 2982/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Pune16 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2982/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80C

dated 23.09.2021 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Act. 2. Registry has pointed out that there is delay of 703 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the delay and relevant contents are reproduced below: “2. That the appellant submits that he does