“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

Akshay Anand, Delhi vs. Assessing Officer, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2273/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Anmol Atrey, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69

compliance was made before Ld. CIT(A) also, the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 24.03.2025. Further aggrieved, the assessee had filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessment was completed u/s144 of the Act without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee

State Resource Centre, Raipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 753/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Raipur07 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.752 & 753/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 State Resource Centre Deshbandhu Complex, Ramsagar Para, Raipur-492 001 Pan: Aadas0287K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 5

checking the mails then it was found that already the first appellate authority had passed ex-parte order and filing of the appeal before the Tribunal had similarly exceeded limitation by 219 days. The Department has not placed on record any evidence to suggest anything contrary to whatever that

State Resource Centre, Raipur vs. ITO- Ward 1(2), Raipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 752/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Raipur07 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 5

Nityanand, Sant Kabir Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Basti

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 470/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2016-17 Nityanand V. The Income Tax Officer Vill. & Post Dhamaicha Basti Sant Kabir Nagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Agzpn3158R (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Vikram Acharya, Aca Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.03.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Teacher Employed With The Government Of U.P. & Earned Salary Income. The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits To The Tune Of Rs.2,16,55,000/- In His Bank Account No.144200101001330 Maintained With Corporation Bank During The Year Under Consideration & The Cash Deposited By The Assessee During The Demonetization Period, I.E. From 01.04.2015 To 31.302.016 Was Rs.15,05,000/-. The Assessing Officer (Ao)

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that there is a delay of 38 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated 03.07.2025 for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit and Medical Certificate, stating therein that

Dhirendra Pratap, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-3(2), Ward-3(2), Hardoi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 467/LKW/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2011-12 Dhirendra Pratap V. The Income Tax Officer A-16/1052, Sector 15 Ward 3(2) Near Vasundhra Complex Hardoi Indira Nagar, Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ayepp3148C (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.12.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 06.11.2018 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,75,750/-. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Deposited Cash To The Tune Of Rs.19,81,000/- In His Bank Account. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued A Query Letter Under Section 133(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) On 04.01.2018, Requiring The Assessee To Furnish The Source Of Cash Deposits Along With Other Evidentiary Proof, In Response To Which The Assessee Filed Reply On 07.02.2018. Since

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 251Section 271(1)(c)

hearing. 3.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that there is a delay of 95 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated Nil for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit, stating therein ... that the appeal before the Tribunal could not be filed within the stipulated period on the advice of the Counsel of the assessee, Shri Gurdev Singh that the only recourse available with the assessee was to go back to the AO in the set aside proceedings. However, on the second

Rakesh Kumar, Barabanki vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(5), Barabanki

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 438/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Rakesh Kumar V. The Income Tax Officer Naka Paisar Ward 5(5) Deen Dayal Nagar Barabanki Barabanki (U.P) Tan/Pan:Awkpk2247F (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Deposited Rs.11,40,000/- During The Demonetization Period, I.E., From 09.11.2016 To 30.12.2016 In His Bank Account No.752530110000014 Maintained With Bank Of India, Subeha Bazar, Haidergarh. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee, Requiring The Assessee To Explain The Source Of Cash Deposits In His Bank Account. Since There Was No Compliance From The Side Of The

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 144Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 68

JCIT. 3.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that there is a delay of 480 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated Nil for condonation of ITA No.438/LKW/2025 Page 6 of 11 delay, duly ... order passed by the NFAC and, thereafter, the assessee had contacted the tax advisor and, thereafter, as per his advice, had filed the appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 480 days. The prayer of the Ld. A.R. was that the delay caused in filing the appeal

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Ritu Dhingra, Shakti Vihar, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee and cross appeal of the Department are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 862/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: him:- (a) That the assessment order dated 31.03.2023 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153C is bad in law in as much no incriminating material was found suggesting any escapement of income at premises of Sh. Avtar Singh Kochhar. (b) That the assessment order passed is non-est and bad in law in as much the proceedings have not been conducted in the manner prescribed by the Department instructions from time to time which are mandatory for compliance by the Learned Authorities particularly with respect

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, CIT, DR

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 153C(3)Section 153DSection 250Section 251(1)(a)

dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee. 8. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. During the course of hearing the Ld. AR invited our attention to the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, wherein the assessment was framed

Ritu Dhingra, Ludhiana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee and cross appeal of the Department are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 645/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: him:-

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, CIT, DR

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 153C(3)Section 153DSection 250Section 251(1)(a)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala vs. Arun Bhandari, Patiala

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 931/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Krinwant Sahay, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.931/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Arun Bhandari Patiala बनाम/ Vs. Tax, Patiala 10, Dhillon Marg, Model Town, Patiala, Punjab-147001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akupb-0470-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.832/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Arun Bhandari Patiala Acit, Dcit Central Circle बनाम/ Vs. 10, Dhillon Marg, Model Town, Patiala Patiala, Punjab-147001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akupb-0470-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Rakesh Cajla (Advocate) ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 07 -01-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Krinwant Sahay () The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue & Cross Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-5

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Cajla (Advocate)For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) Sr. DR

Section 127Section 129Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69C

grounds and confirmed the additions made by the AO on some other, therefore, the Assessee as well as the Revenue both are in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The first grounds of appeal is general in nature. 6. Appeal on Ground No.2 is against confirming the addition

Arun Bhandari, Patiala vs. ACIT DCIT Central Circle Patiala, Patiala

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 832/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Cajla (Advocate)For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) Sr. DR

Section 127Section 129Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69C

The Jindva Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-5 Now Ward-1, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 516/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr. DR

Section 210Section 234ASection 250Section 270A(1)Section 80P(2)(d)

while examining records in connection with proceedings for A.Y. 2015-16. Immediately thereafter, necessary steps were taken to file the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. AR before us submitted that the delay was due to bona fide and unavoidable reasons beyond the control of the assessee

Blind Peoples Association India, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1959/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Pathak, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

vide order dated 09-03- 2020 partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The Department filed appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 04-05-2022 set aside the issue of addition made of Rs. 5,39,59,121/- on account of corpus donation in the assessment ... addition to the extent of Rs. 1,03,62,769/-. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal 7. The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has given all the details in the second round before the CIT(A) as well

Abdulwahid Abdulkarim Qureshi, Sangamner vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 2085/PUN/2025[2016 - 17]Status: HeardITAT Pune07 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Joshi (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath, Addl.CIT

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) 3. There is a delay of 128 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit 2 explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents

Dadaso Ashok Awati, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sangli

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

ITA 1480/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Pune07 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath, Addl.CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

detailed speaking order by observing as under: 4 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the record. A perusal of the assessment order shows that the Assessing Officer, while

Kkvians Vasundhara Foundation Kolhapur, Kolhapur vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 2862/PUN/2024[- NA -]Status: HeardITAT Pune07 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamorekkvians Vasundhara Foundation Cit (Exemption), Pune Kolhapur Vs. Vishwaroop Apartment, Near Karan Nursery, Kolhapur – 416003 Pan: Aaetk4057F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

hereby cancelled.” 5. Aggrieved with such rejection of approval u/s 80G by Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the record. A perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(E) shows that due to persistent

Golchha Uttam Kumar, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 817/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. At the outset, the Learned Page 3 of 10 ITA No 817 of 2025 Golchha Uttam Kumar Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that only

Balguri Rajeshwar Rao, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward- 11(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1728/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1728/Hyd/2025

For Appellant: T Chaitanya Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Helen Ruby Jesindha, Sr. AR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

before the learned CIT(A), but could not succeed. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee at the very outset, has invited the attention of the Bench to the ground nos.2

Sujith Surampudi, Ghatkesar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mancherial

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

ITA 1630/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1630/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Shri Sujith Surampudi Vs. Income Tax Officer Ghatkesar Ward 1 Pan:Cwcps7355A Mancherial (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A Swathi Sheela राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Helan Ruby Jesindha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Sujith Surampudi (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 15.09.2025 For The A.Y 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order U/S250 Of The Act Dt. 15-09-2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi Is Page 1 Of 7

For Appellant: C.A Swathi SheelaFor Respondent: : Smt. Helan Ruby Jesindha, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 144rSection 250Section 272Section 272A(1)(d)

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, the Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee’s mother has been suffering from MSA-P since the year

Atchutha Venkata Sreenivas Rao, Rangareddy vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1414/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1414/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Atchutha Venkata Vs. Assistant Commissioner Sreenivasa Rao, Of Income Tax Ranga Reddy Central Circle 2(1) Pan:Adgpa1171P Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Praveen Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Helen Ruby Jesindha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Atchutha Venkata Sreenivasa Rao (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 18.07.2025 For The A.Y 2020-21. Page 1 Of 7

For Appellant: CA Praveen KumarFor Respondent: : Smt. Helen Ruby Jesindha

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69A

confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO. 5. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) invited our attention to page nos. 9 to 18 of the paper book No. I and submitted

Initiative for Moral and Cultural Training Foundation Telangana, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1015/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1015/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2024-25) Initiative For Moral & Vs. Commissioner Of Income Cultural Training Tax (Exemptions) Foundation Telangana, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aacti2564F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate T. Chaitanya Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Initiative For Moral & Cultural Training Foundation Telangana, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), (“Ld. Cit(E)”) Dated 19.03.2025 For The A.Y 2024-25. Page 1 Of 6

For Appellant: Advocate T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: : Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT

Section 80G

Training Foundation Telangana, Hyderabad 2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 11 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay, explaining the reasons for such delay. We have perused the condonation petition ... provisions of section 80G of the Act. 5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that, during the course of proceedings, the Ld. CIT(E) issued notices to the assessee on 3.12.2024 and 17.02.2025. The assessee