“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

Three C Universal Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 6, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AYs 2010-11,

ITA 7582/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 234A

respectively. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. We have heard the Ld. DR. As observed earlier, the assessee remained unrepresented. We have perused the records and thoroughly gone through the orders of the Ld. CIT(A)/AO. 10. Ground

Three C Universal Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 6, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AYs 2010-11,

ITA 7581/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 234A

Three C Universal Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 6, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AYs 2010-11,

ITA 7580/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 234A

Three C Universal Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 6, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AYs 2010-11,

ITA 7579/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 234A

Ingram Micro India Pvt.Ltd.(Earlier Known As Ingram Micro India Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT(Osdii), Cr-7 (Now DCIT, CC-4(4), Mumbai

ITA 2268/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri M.M. GolvalaFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

2268/Mum/2016 (AY 2010-11) proposed addition of INR 4,02,60,698/-. 4.3. Being aggrieved the Appellant carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal. 4.4. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant appearing before us submitted that the Appellant had furnished the relevant details during the assessment proceedings ... Assessment Order, dated 28/01/2014, making a disallowance of INR 5,66,23,282/- in respect of commission expenses. Therefore, the Appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal on this issue challenging the aforesaid disallowance of commission expenses. 7 ITA No. 2268/Mum/2016 (AY 2010-11) 5.4. The Ld. Authorised Representative

Ingram Micro India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT OSD II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

ITA 1980/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri M.M. GolvalaFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

Alanice Computer Services P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 538/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Saktiit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 197Section 68Section 69C

valid notice, the assessee failed to bring on record any evidence contrary to the ruling of the ld. CIT(A) after filing of appeal before the Tribunal on 24.01.2019. The notices of the Tribunal have been validly served on the assessee, however neither the assessee nor the Authorized Representative attended

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bptp Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2665/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2663/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 2664/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 2665/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs M/S Bptp Ltd., Central Circle-23, M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccb2442A Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, Ca Revenue By : Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 153A

receipts based on the seized material and the addition made on account of Special Discount has been deleted. 30. Aggrieved, the revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. ITA Nos. 2663, 2664 & 2665/Del/2014 42 BPTP Ltd. 31. During the hearing, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bptp Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2663/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 153A

Sri Mandava Naresh, Vijayawada vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 144/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.144/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sri Mandava Naresh Vs. Principal Commissioner Of D.No.14/9, Korukollu Income Tax Kaikalur Vijayawada Charge [Pan : Ahmpn2074J] Vijayawada (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Condonation Of Delay : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit), Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1041046029(1) Dated 19.03.2022 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) By The Assessing Officer (Ao) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18 With The Delay Of 69 Days. The Assessee Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay, Submitting That He Resides In A 2

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

direction to redo the assessment, in accordance with law, after making necessary enquiries and verification. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, by raising the following grounds : 5 I.T.A. No.144/Viz/2022, A.Y.2017-18 Mandava Naresh, Vijayawada 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Achanta Ramu, Siddhantam vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in-limine

ITA 336/VIZ/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.336/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Achanta Ramu Vs. Principal Commissioner Of D.No.8-176, Near Panchayat Income Tax Siddhantam, Penugonda Mandal Rajahmundry West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Arjpa9207F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28 .04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit), Rajahmundry Vide F.No.15/263/Pr/Cit, Rjy/2018-19 Dated 31.03.2019 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15. 2. In The Instant Case, Coordinate Bench Of The Tribunal Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Ex-Parte, Vide It’S Order No.I.T.A.336/Viz/2019

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)

personal reasons he is withdrawing the Vakalat filed in this case. The series of events show that the assessee simply filed appeal before the Tribunal, but he is not interested in pursuing the case, as neither the assessee nor his representative was present on the designated dates, despite the notices

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. M/S Animesh Ispat Private Limited, Raipur

ITA 14/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 14/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Acit-1(1) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan Civil Lines, Raipur(C.G.)-492001 .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Animesh Ispat Private Limited Block-A, 2Nd Floor Maruti Business Park, G.E.Road Raipur (C.G.)-492001 Pan : Aaeca9084F ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Amit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ila.M.Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92C

filed appeal before the CIT (A) wherein the CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. Against the said order the Revenue 'filed appeal before the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal upheld the finding of CIT (A). The Ld. AR pointed out that as per the new Finance Act,2013 from ... filed appeal before the C1T (A)wherein the CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. Against the said order the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal upheld the finding of CIT (A). The Ld. AR pointed out that as per the new Finance Act,2013 from

Jerambhai Bhagvanbhai Gohil, Varachha, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 53/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 54B

condone. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that there is 2 Jerambhai B Gohil no deliberate or inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and same may be condoned. 3. On the other hand, Ld. Senior Departmental-Representative (Ld. Sr-DR) for the Revenue after going through

Javaharlal S Dhariwal, Surat vs. ITO Ward 1(2)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 203/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.203/Srt/2020 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Physical Court) Javaharlal S Dhariwal Income Tax Officer, 886 Old Gidc, Nr. Bank Of Ward-1(2)(2), Surat-395001 Vs Baroda, Katargam, Surat- 395004 Pan No: Aaypd 4207 G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Mahul Shah, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 02.02.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 28.04.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Surat [For Short To As “Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 30.01.2020 For Assessment Year 2013- 14, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By Income-Tax Officer-Ward-1(2)(2), Surat/Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 12.02.2016. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Making A Disallowance Of Rs.3,45,378/- U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The It Act 1961. Javaharlal S Dhariwal 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Partly Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer By Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs.2,46,915/- Out Of Total Disallowance Of Rs.4,93,830/- On Account Of Machinery Salary Expenses. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs.3,95,466/- Being Interest Expenses Claimed U/S 57 Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 254(1)Section 40Section 57

certificate as required under Rule 31ACB in Form 26A was furnished. Thus, the addition was upheld. Further aggrieved assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I have heard the submission of Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee and Ld. Senior Departmental Representative and perused the materials available

Jagdish Chandra Suwalka, Jaipur vs. JCIT, Range-7, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 376/JPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 44A

Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, confirming the order of the AO, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has also raised an additional ground, which is purely legal, as under and relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme

Polta vs. Ky- Tps Power Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5081/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Sangeeta Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

lack of merits towards additions. I.T.A No.5081/Del/2019 3 5. Aggrieved by the denial of relief by the CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 6. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. AR for the assessee referred to the reasons recorded and challenged the validity

ACIT, Central Circle- 8, New Delhi vs. Nagender, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6393/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangal, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Pathak, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 144Section 153A

under relevant provision of the IT Act, 1961 including provisions for reopening under section 147/148, if otherwise applicable.” 8. Aggrieved, the Revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 10. As regards the issue towards sale of property