← 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

Pravin Vasant Salukhe, Lote Khed vs. ITO, Ratnagiri Ward, Ratnagiri

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

ITA 1083/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1083/Pun/2023 Assessment Year 2017-18 Pravin Vasant Salukhe, Vs. Ito, 387A, Gavaliwadi, Ratnagiri Ward, Ghanekhunt, Lote Khed, Ratnagiri Dist. Ratnagiri – 415722 Maharashtra Pan : Cnips2762J Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 144Section 250

NFAC, who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal of the appellant. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of NFAC, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 6. Heard the ld. DR and perused the relevant material on record. We find the NFAC had proceeded to dispose of appeal

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Pennar Industries Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 78/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.48/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 ) Pennar Industries Ltd Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 5(1) Pan:Aabcp3074H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.78/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 ) Asstt. Cit Vs. Pennar Industries Ltd Circle 5(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcp3074H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Mohd. Afzal राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/02/2024 Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Advocate Mohd. AfzalFor Respondent: : Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, DR
Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40

Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) NFAC giving part relief, the assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: Page 2 of 12 ITA Nos 48 and 78 of 2024 Pennar Industries Ltd A) Grounds raised ... NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. 8. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. We have heard the rival arguments made by both sides and perused the record. We find due to non-submission

Pennar Industries Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 48/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.48/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 ) Pennar Industries Ltd Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 5(1) Pan:Aabcp3074H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.78/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 ) Asstt. Cit Vs. Pennar Industries Ltd Circle 5(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcp3074H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Mohd. Afzal राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/02/2024 Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Advocate Mohd. AfzalFor Respondent: : Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, DR
Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40

Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) NFAC giving part relief, the assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: Page 2 of 12 ITA Nos 48 and 78 of 2024 Pennar Industries Ltd A) Grounds raised ... NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. 8. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. We have heard the rival arguments made by both sides and perused the record. We find due to non-submission

Sri Sarada Vidya Peetham, Nalgonda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 456/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Sri Sarada Vidya Peetham, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 15(2), Sy.No.295A, Anantharam Hyderabad. Village, Bhongir Mandal, Nalgonda District. Telangana – 508116. Pan : Aagts3296J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. Ar. Date Of Hearing: 27.02.2024 28.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

appeal of assessee on account of non-prosecution and on merits. 5. Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT(A), assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dt.19.02.2020 had remanded back the matter to the file of ld.CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh

Tbr Infra Pvt Ltd, Alampuram vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5/VIZ/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.05 /Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Tbr Infra (P) Ltd. Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of D.No.7-130/2 Income Tax Nh-16, Alampuram Circle-1 West Godavari Dist. Rajahmundry [Pan : Aafct6445E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

dismissed the appeal of the assessee on this ground. 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. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts

Bantu Pilli Govindarao, Anandapuram vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 306/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.306/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Bantu Pilli Govindarao Vs. Joint Commissioner Of 1-276, Vemulavalasa Income Tax Bpv Kallalu, Anandapuram Range-2 Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Alipg7088F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

claim. 4 I.T.A. No.306/Viz/2023, A.Y.2016-17 Bantupilli Govinda Rao, Visakhapatnam 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

Basaveswara Rao Vishnumolakala, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer Ward2(4), Vijayawada

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

ITA 291/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.291/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Basaveswara Rao Vishnumolakala Vs. Income Tax Officer 10-127 Cowdary Peta Ward-2(4) Kanuru, Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ajcpv1534H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms.Sandhya, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69A

provide any documentary evidence in support of his claim. 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 erroneous both on facts

Prathi Vijay Kumar, Srikakulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Srikakulam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 284/VIZ/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.284/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22) Prathi Vijay Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Srikakulam, Ward-1, Andhra Pradesh-532312. Srikakulam. Pan: Aizpp 5124 Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 234B

raised by the assessee by dismissing the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT (Appeals)-12, Mumbai is contrary to the facts

Budumuru Sandeep Kumar, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 282/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.282/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Budumuru Sandeep Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Near Ramabhajana Ward-1 Rangaraya Puram Vizianagaram Bobbili, Vizianagaram [Pan : Bgtpb5972Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 46ASection 69A

dismissed the appeal of 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 : 3 I.T.A. No.282/Viz/2023, A.Y.2017-18 Budumuru Sandeep Kumar, Vizianagaram 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

Sai Wheel Tyres, Eluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Eluru

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

ITA 276/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.276/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sai Wheel Tyres Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.25/15/1 Ward-2 Opp.Zp Office, Nr Peta Eluru Eluru, West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Acsfs0682C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 144Section 249(4)

provisions of section 249(4) of the Act. 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

Shyam Sundar Polisetty, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2013-

ITA 267/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 260 To 267/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2020-21)

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

disposed of in this consolidated order. 2. At the outset, we noticed that there is a delay of 58 days in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. With respect to belated filing of the appeals, the assessee filed petitions for condonation of delay along with the affidavits ... that the delay occurred is neither intentional nor deliberate. ……” F. 3. On perusal of the explanation given by the assessee for filing the appeals before the Tribunal beyond the prescribed time limit, we find that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause to file the appeals within

Shyam Sundar Polisetty, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2013-

ITA 266/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 260 To 267/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2020-21)

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

disposed of in this consolidated order. 2. At the outset, we noticed that there is a delay of 58 days in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. With respect to belated filing of the appeals, the assessee filed petitions for condonation of delay along with the affidavits ... that the delay occurred is neither intentional nor deliberate. ……” F. 3. On perusal of the explanation given by the assessee for filing the appeals before the Tribunal beyond the prescribed time limit, we find that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause to file the appeals within

Shyam Sundar Polisetty, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2013-

ITA 265/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 260 To 267/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2020-21)

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

disposed of in this consolidated order. 2. At the outset, we noticed that there is a delay of 58 days in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. With respect to belated filing of the appeals, the assessee filed petitions for condonation of delay along with the affidavits ... that the delay occurred is neither intentional nor deliberate. ……” F. 3. On perusal of the explanation given by the assessee for filing the appeals before the Tribunal beyond the prescribed time limit, we find that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause to file the appeals within

Shyam Sundar Polisetty, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2013-

ITA 264/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 260 To 267/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2020-21)

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

disposed of in this consolidated order. 2. At the outset, we noticed that there is a delay of 58 days in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. With respect to belated filing of the appeals, the assessee filed petitions for condonation of delay along with the affidavits ... that the delay occurred is neither intentional nor deliberate. ……” F. 3. On perusal of the explanation given by the assessee for filing the appeals before the Tribunal beyond the prescribed time limit, we find that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause to file the appeals within

Shyam Sundar Polisetty, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2013-

ITA 263/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 260 To 267/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2020-21)

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

disposed of in this consolidated order. 2. At the outset, we noticed that there is a delay of 58 days in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. With respect to belated filing of the appeals, the assessee filed petitions for condonation of delay along with the affidavits ... that the delay occurred is neither intentional nor deliberate. ……” F. 3. On perusal of the explanation given by the assessee for filing the appeals before the Tribunal beyond the prescribed time limit, we find that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause to file the appeals within

Shyam Sundar Polisetty, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2013-

ITA 262/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 260 To 267/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2020-21)

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

disposed of in this consolidated order. 2. At the outset, we noticed that there is a delay of 58 days in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. With respect to belated filing of the appeals, the assessee filed petitions for condonation of delay along with the affidavits ... that the delay occurred is neither intentional nor deliberate. ……” F. 3. On perusal of the explanation given by the assessee for filing the appeals before the Tribunal beyond the prescribed time limit, we find that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause to file the appeals within

Shyam Sundar Polisetty, Guntur vs. Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2013-

ITA 261/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 260 To 267/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2020-21)

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

disposed of in this consolidated order. 2. At the outset, we noticed that there is a delay of 58 days in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. With respect to belated filing of the appeals, the assessee filed petitions for condonation of delay along with the affidavits ... that the delay occurred is neither intentional nor deliberate. ……” F. 3. On perusal of the explanation given by the assessee for filing the appeals before the Tribunal beyond the prescribed time limit, we find that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause to file the appeals within

Shyam Sundar Polisetty, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2013-

ITA 260/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 260 To 267/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2020-21)

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

disposed of in this consolidated order. 2. At the outset, we noticed that there is a delay of 58 days in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. With respect to belated filing of the appeals, the assessee filed petitions for condonation of delay along with the affidavits ... that the delay occurred is neither intentional nor deliberate. ……” F. 3. On perusal of the explanation given by the assessee for filing the appeals before the Tribunal beyond the prescribed time limit, we find that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause to file the appeals within

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Guntur vs. Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 217/VIZ/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.217/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Income Tax Housing Corporation Ltd., Circle-1(1) Plot No.11 & 12, Nirman Guntur Bhavan, Near Apiic Colony Autonagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Aabca7206L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 40

Ld.CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal, by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. The order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi is erroneous both

Malleswara Rao Alamuri (Late), Rep by Wife and L/R Alamuri Lakshmi, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 123/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 123/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) (Late) Malleswara Rao Alumuri, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Rep. By Wife & L/R Alamuri Ward-1(1), Lakshmi, Vijayawada. D.No. 10-14/2-32, Akulavari Street, Mallikharjunapet, One Town, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh – 520001. Pan: Aldpa 7438 G (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

outset, it is observed from the record that there is a delay of 337 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. With respect to belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay along with the affidavit and the relevant contents of affidavit ... Chartered Accountant is also enclosed which is self explanatory. ……” 13 3. On perusal of the explanation given by the assessee for filing the appeal before the Tribunal beyond the prescribed time limit, we find that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause to file the appeal within