← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Vijayawada vs. Sri Satyanarayana Swamy Educational Society, Hyderabad

ITA 287/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.87 & 288/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

other judicial pronouncements, allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Vijayawada vs. Sri Surya Educational Society, Hydeerabad

ITA 286/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.87 & 288/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

other judicial pronouncements, allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Vijayawada vs. Sri Mahanandeeswara Educational Soceity, Hyderabad

ITA 285/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.87 & 288/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

other judicial pronouncements, allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Vijayawada vs. Sri Venkateswara Educational Society, Hyderabad

ITA 284/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.87 & 288/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

other judicial pronouncements, allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Vijayawada vs. Sri Keshava Reddy Educational Society, Hyderabad

ITA 283/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.87 & 288/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

other judicial pronouncements, allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Vijayawada vs. Kesava Reddy Educational Trust, Hyderabad

ITA 282/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.87 & 288/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

other judicial pronouncements, allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Vijayawada vs. Keshava Educational Society, Hyderabad

ITA 281/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.87 & 288/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

other judicial pronouncements, allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts

Renault Nissan Technology & Business Centre India Private Limited, Kanchipuram vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 914/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.913 & 914/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Renault Nissan Technology & Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Business Centre India Private Limited, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 5(1), Tp2/1, Ascendas It Park, Natham Main Building, Aayakar Bhavan, Sub Post Office, Mahindra World City, No. 121, M.G. Road, Kanchipuram District, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Tamil Nadu 603 004. [Pan:Aadcr7253E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ashik Shah, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Both Dated 23.06.2023 Passed By The Nfac [Cit(A)] For The Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 10A

communication and insurance costs. 5. As aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee and the Revenue filed respective appeals before the Tribunal, wherein, the Tribunal remanded all the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification vide its order dated 24.01.2018. In giving effect ... said 9 I.T.A. Nos.913 & 914/Chny/23 expenditures were not incurred for the purpose of rendering service outside India. The respondent Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 16.11.2016 in ITA No. 1009/Mds/2014, the Tribunal allowed Revenue’s appeal and aggrieved by the same, the assessee is in appeal

Renault Nissan Technology& Business Centre India Private Limited, Kanchipuram vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 913/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.913 & 914/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Renault Nissan Technology & Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Business Centre India Private Limited, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 5(1), Tp2/1, Ascendas It Park, Natham Main Building, Aayakar Bhavan, Sub Post Office, Mahindra World City, No. 121, M.G. Road, Kanchipuram District, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Tamil Nadu 603 004. [Pan:Aadcr7253E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ashik Shah, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Both Dated 23.06.2023 Passed By The Nfac [Cit(A)] For The Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 10A

communication and insurance costs. 5. As aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee and the Revenue filed respective appeals before the Tribunal, wherein, the Tribunal remanded all the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification vide its order dated 24.01.2018. In giving effect ... said 9 I.T.A. Nos.913 & 914/Chny/23 expenditures were not incurred for the purpose of rendering service outside India. The respondent Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 16.11.2016 in ITA No. 1009/Mds/2014, the Tribunal allowed Revenue’s appeal and aggrieved by the same, the assessee is in appeal

Satish Babu Kannan, Bengaluru vs. ITO, Intnl Taxn Ward-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 370/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 195

assessed income at Rs.2,79,11,567/-.” Aggrieved against this final assessment order passed in lieu of directions of DRP, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee admitted that there is a delay of 5 days in filing objections before

R. G. Sundar & Co, Erode vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1600/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1599 & 1600/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. R.G. Sundar & Co., The Deputy Commissioner Erode Feeds Producers, Vs. Of Income Tax, 82, Perundurai Road, Central Circle-2, Perundurai – 638 001. Coimbatore Pan: Aaffr 3771C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate Shri Suraj Nahar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

rightly levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Rs 7,59,677/-. Consequently, Grounds of appeal of appellant are dismissed.” Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The facts of the case are that

R. G. Sundar & Co, Erode vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1599/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1599 & 1600/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. R.G. Sundar & Co., The Deputy Commissioner Erode Feeds Producers, Vs. Of Income Tax, 82, Perundurai Road, Central Circle-2, Perundurai – 638 001. Coimbatore Pan: Aaffr 3771C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate Shri Suraj Nahar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

rightly levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Rs 7,59,677/-. Consequently, Grounds of appeal of appellant are dismissed.” Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The facts of the case are that

Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited, Chennai vs. Commissioner Appeals Nafac, Nafac

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

ITA 1494/CHNY/2023[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35

sustained and upheld. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant on this issue is dismissed and not allowed.” Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee argued that the CIT(A) and the AO erred in confirming the levy of penalty and levying

Toppan Merrill Technology Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle (4), Chennai

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

ITA 1430/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1430/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Toppan Merrill Technology The Deputy Commissioner Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, 5Th Floor, Fortius Tower, Corporate Circle 4, Olympia Technology Park, Chennai. Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aaecm 6364J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Ashik Shah, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)

method of accounting followed by the appellant company. Thus, Grounds of Appeal No.1 raised by the appellant stands dismissed.” Aggrieved, assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Now, before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee filed copies of invoices in its paper-book consisting of pages

Bright Singh Chelladurai, Nagercoil vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1428/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1428/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Bright Singh Chelladurai, The Income Tax Officer, No.5, Nanthanial Street, Ward-1, Nagercoil, Tirunelveli. Kanyakumari-629 001. [Pan: Atvpb 0028 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raghav Rajeev MenonFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 144Section 148Section 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, Id.counsel for the assessee made only one statement that the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.K. Gupta

Soundarapandian Edison Amal Raj, Saligramam vs. DCIT Non Corporate Circle 1(8), Chennai

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

ITA 1314/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1314/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Soundarapandian Edison Amal The Dy. Commissioner Of Raj, Vs. Income Tax, 17/9, Pillyar Koil Street, Non Corporate Circle-8(1), Gandhi Nagar, Saligramam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 093. [Pan: Aahpe-7232-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Viswanathan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri R. Viswanathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

appellate authority wholly concurred with the findings of the A.O and dismissed assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. During the course of present proceedings, the Ld. A.R of the assessee reiterated the same set of arguments and heavily relied upon

Trimurty Colonizers and Builders Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 53/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Dr. S Seethalakshmii.T.A. No.53/Jpr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

with section 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed. Now, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the alleged sum was not received during the year, therefore, section

Dipti Garg, Tonk vs. ITO WD, Tonk

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 633/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Dr. S Seethalakshmi

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

Income assessed at Rs.40,57,420/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed. Aggrieved, assessee is now appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the documents placed at pages 95 to 97 of the paper book containing certificate

The Bangalore City Institute, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward-2, Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 404/BANG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Sudheendra B. R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Saravanan B, CIT and Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 250

Nos.403 and 404/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 4 6. Aggrieved by the Order of the Additional / JCIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that assessee parallelly filed online rectification before the CPC. It was submitted that CPC passed an order under section

The Bangalore City Institute, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward-2, Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 403/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Sudheendra B. R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Saravanan B, CIT and Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 250

Nos.403 and 404/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 4 6. Aggrieved by the Order of the Additional / JCIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that assessee parallelly filed online rectification before the CPC. It was submitted that CPC passed an order under section