← 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

Yograjsinh G. Jadeja, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward 1 (1) (1) Rajkot, Rajkot

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

ITA 754/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 754/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Yograjsinh G. Jadeja, The Ito, At Chapabeda, Ward – 1(1)(1), Vs. Ta, Kotda Sangani, Rajkot Rajkot-360030 Gujarat "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bfqpj9355F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 4(2)Section 5Section 5(1)

examine, this fact, whether assessee has paid the tax amount in the VSV, 2020 Scheme, as the assessee filed further appeal before the Tribunal, therefore it raises doubt that assessee has not paid the taxes in Vivad -Se-Vishwas scheme. If the assessee did not pay the tax amount ... deemed to have withdrawn, stating that the assessee had opted the VSV Scheme. Despite of this fact, the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal, for adjudication, on merit. Therefore, I noted that assessee might have not paid the taxes under the VSV Scheme, therefore I remit this issue

Mithilesh Prasad, Muzaffarpur vs. ITO, Ward- 3 (3), Samastipur

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

ITA 427/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.427/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mithilesh Prasad…………….………………. …………………....Appellant S/O Ram Bhakta Baitha, Damodarpur, Muzaffarpur, Bihar-842001. [Pan: Ankpp5641D] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(3), Samastipur…....……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 08, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 12, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.08.2025 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Dealer Of M/S Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Ioc) & Derives Income From The Sale Of Lpg Cylinders. For The Assessment Year 2017–18, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Declaring A Total Income Of ₹6,04,460. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Made Various

Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

justify the decline in net profit ratio as compared to the immediately preceding assessment year. 4. The assessee has now preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. However, despite issuance of notices, none appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. Therefore, in the interest of justice

Plutus Infrastructure Ltd, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Patna

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

ITA 30/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.30/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Plutus Infrastructure Ltd.………………. …………………....Appellant 310, N P Centre, New Dak Bunglow Road, Patna- 800001.. [Pan: Aadcp2152Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Patna……..…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri D. V. Pathy, Sr. Adv. Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 07, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 12, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.02.2024 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate Development & Construction. For The Assessment Year 2015–16, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring A Total Income Of ₹83,028. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Estimated The Net Profit At The Rate Of 8% On Undisclosed Sales & Accordingly Made An Addition Of ₹17,71,120. In Addition Thereto, An Addition Of ₹5,60,000 Was Made

Section 250Section 43C

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 303 days. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay, explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering

Matsyodari Shikshan Sansthas Ankushrao Tope Junior College, Jalna vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Aurangabad

ITA 880/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C N ChobeFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT
Section 200ASection 234E

Nos.877 to 880/PUN/2025 ITA Nos.877 to 880/PUN/2025 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following ground: Ld. A.O. erred raised demand through intimation without any authority of law u/s 200A and late fees u/s 234E ... raised by the assessee in ITA Nos.879 & 880/PUN/2025. 6. There is a delay of 1307 days each in filing of the above 3 appeals before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. The contents

Matsyodari Shikshan Sansthas Ankushrao Tope Junior College, Jalna vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Aurangabad

ITA 879/PUN/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C N ChobeFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT
Section 200ASection 234E

Nos.877 to 880/PUN/2025 ITA Nos.877 to 880/PUN/2025 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following ground: Ld. A.O. erred raised demand through intimation without any authority of law u/s 200A and late fees u/s 234E ... raised by the assessee in ITA Nos.879 & 880/PUN/2025. 6. There is a delay of 1307 days each in filing of the above 3 appeals before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. The contents

Matsyodari Shikshan Sansthas Ankushrao Tope College, Jalna vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Aurangabad

ITA 878/PUN/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C N ChobeFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT
Section 200ASection 234E

Nos.877 to 880/PUN/2025 ITA Nos.877 to 880/PUN/2025 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following ground: Ld. A.O. erred raised demand through intimation without any authority of law u/s 200A and late fees u/s 234E ... raised by the assessee in ITA Nos.879 & 880/PUN/2025. 6. There is a delay of 1307 days each in filing of the above 3 appeals before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. The contents

Matsyodari Shikshan Sansthas Ankushrao Tope College, Jalna vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Aurangabad

ITA 877/PUN/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C N ChobeFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT
Section 200ASection 234E

Nos.877 to 880/PUN/2025 ITA Nos.877 to 880/PUN/2025 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following ground: Ld. A.O. erred raised demand through intimation without any authority of law u/s 200A and late fees u/s 234E ... raised by the assessee in ITA Nos.879 & 880/PUN/2025. 6. There is a delay of 1307 days each in filing of the above 3 appeals before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. The contents

Avr Hotels & Resorts Private Limited, Panihati vs. ITO, Ward 14(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes wherein the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2596/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarmaavr Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito, Ward-14(1), Kolkata 141, T N Banerjee Road, Panihati, 24 Parganas, Wb 700114. Pan No. : Aafca3334H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) Sa No.14/Kol/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Avr Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito, Ward-14(1), Kolkata 141, T N Banerjee Road, Panihati, 24 Parganas, Wb 700114. Pan No. : Aafca3334H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Saswati Mitra Dutta and RajashreeFor Respondent: Shri S B Chakraborthy, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 68

income after additions and raising a demand of ₹1,97,04,090. 3. At the outset the Ld. AR fairly submitted that the appeal before the Tribunal was filed with a delay of 375 days. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for delay. After considering the explanation

Govinda Kumar Sarkar, Naihati vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(2), Purulia

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2047/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2047/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Govinda Kumar Sarkar, Vs Ito Ward-3(2), Purulia 37, Sc Pal Road, Naihati Bannerjee Para, 24 Parganas North, West Bengal-743165 Pan No. :Aivps 2875 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : S.K.Kamalauddin, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikari, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.07.2025 Passed By The Ld.Addl/Jcit(A)-7, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal As The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee On Account Of Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Of 3126 Days. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That The Assessee Is A Retired Employee & He Was Not Having Online Access & He Has Not Been Advised Properly By His Consultant. It Was The Prayer That The Delay Before The Ld.Cit(A) May Kindly Be Condoned & The Appeal Of The Assessee May Kindly Be Disposed Off On Merits. 3. In Reply, Ld.Sr. Dr Vehemently Supported The Orders Of The Ld. Ao & Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: S.K.Kamalauddin, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikari, Sr. DR

ld.Addl/JCIT(A)-7, Delhi for the assessment year 2015-2016. 2. It was submitted by the ld.AR that the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal as the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay in filing the appeal before

State Bank of India Nalikul Branch, Nalikul vs. Income Tax TDS Ward 2(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2691/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. DR
Section 10(5)Section 156Section 201Section 201(1)

Even before the ld. CT(A), the assessee has failed to represent and it is also an ex-parte order. Now, in the appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee has raised the ground that in 2 view of the interim order of the Hon’ble Madras High Court

Veerprabhu Auto Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 2(4), Kol, Kolkata

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

ITA 1218/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250

delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. ITA No.:1218/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Veerprabhu Auto Pvt. Ltd. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred ... dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the case was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR. 6. The assessee

D.C.I.T Cir - 10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Eureka Forbs Ltd, Kolkata

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2037/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

instant appeals within statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 1246/KOL/2019; AY 2012-13: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case ... partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. It may be mentioned that the assessee had also filed appeals against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) for all the four years

D.C.I.T Cir - 10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Eureka Forbs Ltd, Kolkata

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1248/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

instant appeals within statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 1246/KOL/2019; AY 2012-13: "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case ... partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. It may be mentioned that the assessee had also filed appeals against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) for all the four years

D.C.I.T Cir - 10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Eureka Forbs Ltd, Kolkata

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1247/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

instant appeals within statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 1246/KOL/2019; AY 2012-13: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case ... partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. It may be mentioned that the assessee had also filed appeals against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) for all the four years

D.C.I.T Cir - 10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Eureka Forbs Ltd, Kolkata

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1246/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

instant appeals within statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 1246/KOL/2019; AY 2012-13: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case ... partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. It may be mentioned that the assessee had also filed appeals against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) for all the four years

Jagram Tegiram Yadav, Mumbai vs. Ward 41.1.2, Mumbai

ITA 7149/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Section 147Section 148Section 69C

aranr atiieta aftpeor ara tie Hag FI IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH

S R Jewels, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 34(3)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 5938/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2009-10 S R Jewels, Income Tax Officer, 33, B J Industrial Estate, Ward-34(3)(5), Moti Udyog Bhavan, Vs. 126, Kautilya Bhavan, Kanchpada, Bandra Kurla Complex, Malad West, Bandra East, Mumbai-400064. Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aayfs8159E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri R.C. Modi / Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke For Revenue : Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, Sr.Dr (Virtually Present) Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-01-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri R.C. Modi /For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 69Section 69C

Procedure (BAP) scheme, the Ld.CIT(A) restricted the addition to 3% of the alleged bogus purchases. The Revenue thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal and the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide its order dt. 25-05-2018 in ITA No. 5405/Mum/2017, noted that

Nih Sahay Utthansamiti, Madhubani vs. Income-Tax Officer (Exemption), Muzaffarpur

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

ITA 96/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16
Section 11Section 12ASection 250

upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. Not satisfied with the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal raising various grounds. One of the principal grounds taken by the assessee is that no proper opportunity of being heard was provided

Vijay Kumar, Samastipur vs. ITO, Ward 3 (3), Samastipur

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

ITA 79/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.79/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vijay Kumar………..………….………………. …………………....Appellant Kishanpur Warish Nagar, Samastipur, Bihar-848101. [Pan: Aqcpk3836C] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(3), Samastipur…....……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri G. P. Tulsiyan, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 08, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 09, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.01.2025 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017–18 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹3,51,040. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Was Duly Issued. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noticed Cash Deposits Of ₹20,00,000 In The Assessee’S Bank Account. The Assessing Officer Provided Several

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

also contended that the assessee’s request for hearing through video conference was not considered. 4. The assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal, contending that the order passed by the CIT(A) is bad in law, as the submissions made by the assessee were not considered

Vaishal Patliputra Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Patna vs. Assessment Unit, Patna

In the result, the ITA Nos

ITA 434/PAT/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.429To 434/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Vaishal Patliputra Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd……………………………...………………. …………………....Appellant Feeder Balancing Dairy, Phulwarishariff, Patna, Bihar – 801505. [Pan: Aaaav8463B] Vs. Assessment Unit, Delhi.…..…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nishan Maitin, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. A H Chowdhury, Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 06, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 09, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Orders Dated 07.04.2025 Passed By The Cit(A)-Patna U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’). Since All The Above Appeals Have Been Filed By The Same Assessee, Involve Common Facts & Arise Out Of Related Assessment & Penalty Proceedings, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. There Are Delays In Filing Of The Appeals, As Under:

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 80P

confirmed the assessment. I.T.A. Nos.429to 434/Pat/2025 Vaishal Patliputra Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. At the time of the hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to present its case before