“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

The Chandragudem Primary Agrl Coop Credit Society Ltd, Krishna Dist vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 118/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.118/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) The Chandragudem Primary Agrl. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Coop. Credit Society Limited Noh Ward-3(5), 2091, Chandragudem Village, Vijayawada. Mylavaram Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh-521230. Pan: Aacat 8165 C (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Asrss Siva Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/03/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 27/03/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri ASRSS Siva Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 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. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred

DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai vs. M/S Bsr Builders Engineers & Contractors, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 734/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:732, 733 & 734/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & C.O Nos.34, 35 & 36/Chny/2023 [In I.T.A. Nos.732, 733 & 734/Chny/2023] The Dcit, M/S. Bsr Builders Central Circle 2(3), Vs. Engineers & Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aagfb 7140N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent / Cross Objector) राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar & Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocates सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar & Shri P.M. KathirFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 250(2)

adjudicated. The Grounds of appeal Nos. 1.1 to 1.4 are therefore treated as dismissed for statistical purposes. Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Brief facts are that search and seizure operation

DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai vs. M/S Bsr Builders Engineers & Contractors, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 733/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar & Shri P.M. KathirFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 250(2)

DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai vs. M/S Bsr Builders Engineers & Contractors, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 732/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar & Shri P.M. KathirFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 250(2)

Ascendas It Park (Chennai) Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT 1, Chennai

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

ITA 682/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 682/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ascendas It Park (Chennai) The Principal Commissioner Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, Pinnacle Building, 1St Floor, Range-1, International Tech Park, Chennai – 34. Csir Road, Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. Pan: Aaeca 7979D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms.Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Revision Order Passed By The Principal Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2022-23/1051515676(1) Dated 28.03.2023. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 31.01.2021. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Pcit Passed U/S.263 Of The Act Revising The Assessment Framed By The Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act Dated 31.01.2021. The Pcit Has Revised The Assessment In Regard To Following Two Issues:- (I) Loss On Sale Of Fixed Assets At Rs.11,02,001/- (Ii) Provision For Doubtful Debts At Rs.31,46,538/-

For Appellant: Ms.Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

ledger extracts and the relevant material on record needs to be carried out by the concerned Assessing Officer.” Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee relied

M/S Kali Bmh Systems Private Limited, Kumbakonam vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Kumbakonam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 488/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri. K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, IRS, JCIT

Section 127Section 143(3)

correctly disallowed the proportionate amount of premium amortised in the profit and loss account. Hence the appeal is dismissed’’. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. :- 6 -: ITA No.488 /Chny/2023 7. I have heard the rival contention and perused the material on record. I find that assessee

Presidency Finance Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-5(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1477/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1477/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Presidency Finance Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 24/12, 3Rd Floor, Raghaviah Road, Income Tax, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Corporate Circle 5(2), [Pan:Aaccp4841R] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 17.10.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 11.10.2017 Admitting A Total Income Of ₹.80,45,362/- Under Normal Provisions & Book Profit Of ₹.44,41,615/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & 2

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

extent of 30% of the total unexplained expenditure and partly allowed the appeal. 5. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. With regard to the addition made under section 68 of the Act, by filing various details in the form of paper book, the ld. counsel

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Asia Power Projects Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismsised

ITA 1140/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojarind Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-16 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Asia Power Projects Private Limited, Circle – 1(1)(1), 4 Lake Side Residency, No.4, Bengaluru. Annaswamy Mudaliar Road, Bengaluru – 560 042. Pan : Aadca 0485 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Chavali Narayana, Ca Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayana, CAFor Respondent: Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

ITAT Bangalore. Ground is, thus, allowed for statistical purposes.” 5. Aggrieved by the Order of the CIT(A), Revenue has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned DR relied on the grounds raised and submitted that assessee has not established how the facts of the present case

Asst. CIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Consultants Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 2854/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GanatraFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14A

considered which yielded exempt income during the relevant previous year. 6. In the above facts and circumstances, the Revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 3 above. 7. We find that the CIT(A) has granted relief to the Assessee holding

ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Consultants Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 2853/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: or at the time of hearing. 4. The relevant facts in brief are that Assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of financial services. The Assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2018-19 on 19/10/2018 declaring total income of INR 49,21,70,290/-. The case of the Assessee was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act vide order, dated 09/04/2021, after making, in

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GanatraFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14A

The Institute of Company Secretaries of India, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle Exemp 2(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3372/DEL/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2024

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2021-22 The Institute Of Company Vs. Dcit, Secretaries Of India, Circle Exemp Icsi House 2(1) 22 Institutional Area, Delhi Lodi Road, H.O Aliganj, Delhi 110003 Pan Aaatt1103F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ranjan Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT- DR

Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 143(1)Section 154

account of non- accumulation of funds under section 11(5) of the Act, that the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. The Institute of Company Secretaries of India vs. DCIT 6 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is registered

Motherson Sumi Systems Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2054/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 108(4)Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(e)Section 92D

final assessment order on 16.01.2015 making the aforesaid disallowance/ addition to the income returned by the assessee. 3.7 Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto. 4 Motherson Sumi Systems Limited vs. DCIT 4. Ground no. 1 is general in nature

M/S. Shankar Ramchandra Earthmovers Private Limited, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5, Pune

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

ITA 1170/PUN/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69C

Shankar Ramchandra Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., the additions made by the AO. Being aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. SUBMISSION OF LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR): 3. The ld. AR filed a voluminous paper book containing 1235 pages. Ld. AR invited our attention

Venkateswara Rao Jammula, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Guntur

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

ITA 60/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.60/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Venkateswara Rao Jammula Vs. Income Tax Officer 5-203, Thulluru, Guntur Ward-2(3) [Pan :Beapj2713N] Guntur (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271ASection 282Section 69A

assessee neither responded to the notices nor sought any adjournment. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. On the facts and circumstance of case, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous

Ashram Educational Society, Kakinada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

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

ITA 54/VIZ/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69C

assessee nor the assessee made any submissions. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in further 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

Tutta Annapurneswari, Narsipatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anakapalle

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

ITA 42/VIZ/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.42/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Tutta Annapurneswari, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Narsipatnam Mandal, Ward-1, Anakapalli District. Anakapalle. Pan: Asbpt 6963 E (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)

submissions made by the assessee, dismissed the appeal. 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. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also

Sreepada Venkatasubbamma, Achanta vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Palakol

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

ITA 29/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.29/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Sreepada Venkatasubbamma Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.4-166 Ward-1 Brahmana Veedhi Palakol Penumanchili, Achanta West Godavari Dist [Pan : Djzps9581M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

during this period and as soon as the condition improved, the assessee took necessary steps for filing the appeal and could file the appeal before the Tribunal only on 29.01.2024 with the delay of 17 days. The assessee produced medical certificate as evidence and submitted that the reasons ... assessment order dated 22.03.2022 filed by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also

Venkata Satyanarayana Gunda, Konduru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 27/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.27/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Venkata Satyanarayana Gunda Vs. Income Tax Officer 1-70B, Main Road Ward-3(1) A.Konduru Vijayawada Ntr Dist. [Pan : Atrpg0224C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.Sivas Ram Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 144Section 69A

order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated 30.08.2023 ought to have been filed before the Tribunal by 30.10.2023, but the assessee could file appeal before the Tribunal on 29.01.2024 with the delay of 92 days. We find 3 I.T.A. No.27 /Viz/2024, A.Y.2017-18 Venkata Satyanaraya Gunda, Konduru there is a reasonable ... support of the grounds raised before the Ld.CIT(A). 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. In the facts and circumstance of case, the learned CIT(Appeals) ought to have considered

Sri Venkateswara Enterprises, Rajahmundry vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Rajahmundry

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

ITA 26/VIZ/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.26/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Sri Venkateswara Enterprises Vs. Assistance Commissioner Of D.No.3-347, Moarampudi Road Income Tax Rajahmundry Circle-2(1) [Pan : Abcfs1918A] Rajahmundry (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 143(3)

I.T.A. No.26/Viz/2024, A.Y.2012-13 Sri Venkateswara Enterprises, Rajahmundry 2. In the instant case, during the first round of litigation, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated 14.11.2019, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee as time barred. The Tribunal vide ITA No.37/Viz/2020 ... passed order dated 29.11.2023, dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC

Kapil Infra Avenues Private Limited, Vijayawada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 258/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.258/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2017-18) Kapil Infra Avenues Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Vijayawada. Circle-1(1), Pan: Aadck 4944 P Vijayawada. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 26/03/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 147Section 148

outset, we noticed that there is a delay of 209 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. With respect to belated filing of the appeal, the assessee has filed a condonation petition stating that due to shifting of office from Vijayawada to Hyderabad, the assessee could not file ... appeal of the assessee and passed ex-parte order. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following revised grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also