“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

Naval Seth L/H Late Sh. Ghansham Dass Seth, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-28(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6210/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

notices issued by Ld. CIT(A), he dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 13.02.2025. Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 3 | P a g e Naval Seth vs ACIT Circle -28(1) 4.1 Although the assessee has raised multiple grounds, we, first take

Gagan Bharti Educational Society, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Exemption 1(2), Delhi

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

ITA 2275/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Shivam Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 13(7)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 2Section 250

multiple notices issued; Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte vide order dated 12.03.2025. Aggrieved further, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, Ld. AR submitted that the last notice for hearing was issued by the Ld. CIT(A) on 10.03.2025, allowing time

Bharti Airtel Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, TDS, Ward-1(1), International Taxation, New Del;Hi

In the result, ground of appeal no

ITA 4580/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.4580/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2009-10) Bharti Airtel Ltd., Bharti Crescent, 1 Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase Ii, New Delhi 110070 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aaacb-2894-G बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tds, Ward 1(1), International Taxation, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent New Delhi अपीलार्थी द्वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Anil Bhalla, Chartered Accountant प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 201(1)

favour of the assessee deleting the disallowance made u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act. Against the findings of CIT(A), the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal in ITA Nos.6078 & 6079/Del/2019 inter alia assailing findings of the CIT(A) in deleting disallowance of interest paid to ABN Amro u/s.40 ... appears that the demands under section 201(1) r.w.s 195 were also raised on the assessee which are right now pending in appeal before this Tribunal. It was in this backdrop of facts that the claim of deduction for interest paid to ABN Amro Bank, amounting

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2 (1), Varanasi vs. Prominent Datamatics Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Varanasi

ITA 135/VNS/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi05 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 124(1)(a)Section 124(2)Section 124(3)(a)Section 250(1)Section 255(4)Section 69A

Third Member has passed order dated 09/10/2025; which is reproduced below for the ease of reference: “The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 23.09.2020 passed for assessment year 2017-18. 2. The brief ... dismissed. Appeal is partly allowed.” 6a. Now aggrieved by the appellate order passed by learned CIT(A), the Revenue has filed an appeal before the Tribunal while the assessee has filed Cross-Objections. The Ld. CIT DR opened arguments before the Bench and drew our attention to grounds of appeal

Chand Jewellers, Nakodar vs. Income Tax Officer, Jalandhar

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

ITA 574/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 574/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Chand Jewellers, Bazar Sarafan Vs. Ito-Ward Nakodar, Distt. Jalandhar. Jalandhar. [Pan:-Aahfc5908J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amit Bajaj, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

dismissed, and the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is hereby upheld in its entirety.” 5. Now, the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal on the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal. 6. In course of appellate proceedings before the tribunal, the ld. AR of the assessee

Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited, Ranchi vs. ACIT, C.C.1, Ranchi

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

ITA 38/RAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayjharkhand State Beverages A.C.I.T., Corporation Limited, Central Circle-1, Vs. Utpad Bhawan, Kanke Road, Ranchi. Ranchi-834008. Pan No. Aaccj 5622 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

sought adjournment on the ground that he is the CIT(A) who has passed the impugned order which is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. It was submitted by the ld. AR that in ground No.9 of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has categorically raised

Virendra Vijaysingh Pardeshi, Nashik vs. Income Tax Office Ward 2(1) Nashik, Nashik

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

ITA 2620/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2620/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Virendra Vijaysingh Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik. Pardeshi, Row House No.10, Swapnpurti Cooperative Housing Society, Kalptaru Nagar, Nashik- 422006. Pan : Anhpp9809L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Pardeshi Revenue By : Shri Ganesh B. Budruk Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.09.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit-Appeals Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.2500000 Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 69A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Merely For Non-Appearance Relying Solely On Procedural Default & Ignoring That Appellate Proceedings Are Continuation Of Assessment & Must Be Decided On Merits Based On Record & Written Submissions Already Filed.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh PardeshiFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk

Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 271DSection 68Section 69A

/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4 6. We have heard Ld. counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find that

Santosh Arun Kaspate, Pune vs. DCIT, Cir-8, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2199/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2198 & 2199/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Santosh Arun Kaspate, Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Panchwati Niwas Kaspate Vasti, Wakad, Pune- 411027. Pan : Acypk3347C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 25.07.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2198/Pun/2025 For Adjudication As The Lead Case.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade

Section 143(3)Section 68

/NFAC dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay. 7. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. When the appeal was called for hearing neither anybody appeared from the side of the assessee nor any application for adjournment was filed

Santosh Arun Kaspate, Pune vs. DCIT, Cir-8, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2198/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade

Section 143(3)Section 68

Kadeer Shaikh Amir Shaikh, Aurangabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Aurangabad

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

ITA 1981/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1981/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Kadeer Shaikh Amir Shaikh, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), 178, Tilak Nagar, Sillod, Aurangabad. Aurangabad- 431112. Pan : Cxgps1949P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ramesh N. Thete (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Manish Sinha (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Chennai [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Duly Supported By An Affidavit That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh N. Thete (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manish Sinha (Virtual)

Section 143(3)Section 148

dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 3 6. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have heard Ld. counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find that

Mrs. Uma Aarun Patil, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 1974/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk

Section 24

/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 6. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. When the appeal was called for hearing, neither anybody appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee nor any application for adjournment was filed despite

Paras Multiplex LLP, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 21(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6649/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethparas Multiplex Llp Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 21(2)(5) Room No. 107, 1St Floor, Piramal 601, Orbit Plaza, New Prabhadevi Road, Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400025. Pan/Gir No: Aaqfp2152C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the appellant filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld. AR of the appellant had challenged the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and submitted that adequate opportunity of hearing was not provided to the assessee. He submitted that

Mahesh Narsinghani, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 28(2)(1), Vashi Railway Station Building

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3681/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethmahesh Narsinghani Vs. Ito 28(2)(1) F-94, Apmc, Fruit Market, It-Office, Vasi Railway Station Building, Sector-19, Turbhe Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703. Navi Mumbai-400705. Pan/Gir No: Aaapn3486D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

contrary material or rejecting books of account in terms of law.” 3. There is a delay of 24 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant has filed an affidavit stating that the delay was due to miscommunication and lack of co-ordination with the earlier ... these notices. Hence, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution as well as on merits. Aggrieved, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The case was posted for hearing on 16.07.2025, 21.08.2025, 08.10.2025, 16.12.2025 and 23.12.2025. The assessee appeared only in the first hearing

Lakhi Ram, Gurugram vs. ITO Ward 1(4) Gurgaon, Gurugram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2028/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Amitabh Shuklaita No. 2028/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2019-20 Lakhi Ram, Vs Income Tax Officer, House No. 70, Village- Dhanwapur, Ward-1(4), Daultabad, Gurugram, Gurugram, Haryana-122001 Haryana-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Awzpr6814L Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2019-20 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1061566876(1) Dated 27.02.2024, In Proceedings U/S 144 R.W.S. 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

afresh after making requisite enquiries and proper verification with regard to taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest

M/S. Shakambhari Ispat & Power Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Kolkata

ITA 931/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148

there is no infirmity in the same. 6. Aggrieved with both the orders of the authorities below, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Ld. AR vehemently submitted that the re-opening of assessment was made invalidly without satisfying the conditions precedent to issue of notice ... assessed the entire value of excess stock found at the time of survey by way of undisclosed income of the appellant. On appeal, Hon'ble Tribunal observed that the entire quantity of excess stock discovered in the course of survey operation could not beregarded as unexplained income of the appellant

Madhur Coal Mining Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1784/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50DSection 56(2)(viia)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2015-16 dated 27.06.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “(1) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC was wrong in upholding the addition of Rs.13 ... Year: 2015-16 Madhur Coal Mining Pvt. Ltd. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR stated that there are two issues for consideration

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(1), Kolkata vs. Shakambhari Ispat & Power Limited, Kolkata

ITA 1591/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Shakambhari Ispat & Power Limited, Kolkata

ITA 1561/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Shakambhari Ispat & Power Limited, Kolkata

ITA 1560/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148

D.C.I.T., CC - 3(1), Kolkata vs. Shakambhari Ispat & Power Limited, Kolkata

ITA 1541/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148