← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Rajahmundry vs. Dollars Colony Phase-1, Vijayawada

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the cross appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 177/VIZ/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.218-220/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 To2020-21) M/S Dollars Colony Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Phase-1, D.No.40-3/1-46 Income Tax Krishna Nagar, Venkateswarapuram Central Circle-2 Vijayawada Rajahmundry [Pan : Aacad6957E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.176/Viz/2022 & 177/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19& 2019-20) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Dollars Colony Central Circle-2 Phase-1, D.No.40-3/1-46 Rajahmundry Krishna Nagar Venkateswarapuram Vijayawada [Pan : Aacad6957E] (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 21.02.2023 : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153C

after considering the submissions made by the assessee, estimated the profit on unaccounted sales @12.5%. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 1. The learned CIT(Appeals) is erred in facts and law while passing the order. 2. The Learned ... allowed. We direct the AO to delete the additions made in the hands of assessee AOP. I.T.A.No.176/Viz/2022, A.Y.2018-19 7. The revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal on 16.09.2022, since, the Ld.Principal Commissioner of Income Tax had issued authorisation in view of the tax effect reported at Rs.52

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Centrl Circle-2, Rajahmundry vs. Dollars Colony Phase-1, Vijayawada

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the cross appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 176/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.218-220/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 To2020-21) M/S Dollars Colony Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Phase-1, D.No.40-3/1-46 Income Tax Krishna Nagar, Venkateswarapuram Central Circle-2 Vijayawada Rajahmundry [Pan : Aacad6957E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.176/Viz/2022 & 177/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19& 2019-20) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Dollars Colony Central Circle-2 Phase-1, D.No.40-3/1-46 Rajahmundry Krishna Nagar Venkateswarapuram Vijayawada [Pan : Aacad6957E] (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 21.02.2023 : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153C

after considering the submissions made by the assessee, estimated the profit on unaccounted sales @12.5%. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 1. The learned CIT(Appeals) is erred in facts and law while passing the order. 2. The Learned ... allowed. We direct the AO to delete the additions made in the hands of assessee AOP. I.T.A.No.176/Viz/2022, A.Y.2018-19 7. The revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal on 16.09.2022, since, the Ld.Principal Commissioner of Income Tax had issued authorisation in view of the tax effect reported at Rs.52

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam vs. Nallamilli Sridevi, Tirupati

In the result, Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3/VIZ/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri Pawan Chakrapani, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The raised has raised 11 grounds in its appeal however, Grounds No. 2, 3, 4 & 5 relate to deletion of addition of Rs. 2,16,00,000/-. Grounds No.6, 7 & 8 relate ... appeal by confirming the additions made by the Ld. AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 39. Before the Tribunal, the Revenue has raised 07 grounds however, Grounds No.1, 2, 3 & 4 relate to the deletion of addition towards

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam vs. Nallamilli Sridevi, Tirupati

In the result, Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2/VIZ/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri Pawan Chakrapani, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The raised has raised 11 grounds in its appeal however, Grounds No. 2, 3, 4 & 5 relate to deletion of addition of Rs. 2,16,00,000/-. Grounds No.6, 7 & 8 relate ... appeal by confirming the additions made by the Ld. AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 39. Before the Tribunal, the Revenue has raised 07 grounds however, Grounds No.1, 2, 3 & 4 relate to the deletion of addition towards

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam vs. Vittalam Nataraj Prasad, Tirupati

In the result, Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1/VIZ/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri Pawan Chakrapani, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The raised has raised 11 grounds in its appeal however, Grounds No. 2, 3, 4 & 5 relate to deletion of addition of Rs. 2,16,00,000/-. Grounds No.6, 7 & 8 relate ... appeal by confirming the additions made by the Ld. AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 39. Before the Tribunal, the Revenue has raised 07 grounds however, Grounds No.1, 2, 3 & 4 relate to the deletion of addition towards

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(International Taxation), Visakhapatnam vs. Vittalam Nataraj Prasad, Tirupati

In the result, Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 247/VIZ/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri Pawan Chakrapani, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The raised has raised 11 grounds in its appeal however, Grounds No. 2, 3, 4 & 5 relate to deletion of addition of Rs. 2,16,00,000/-. Grounds No.6, 7 & 8 relate ... appeal by confirming the additions made by the Ld. AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 39. Before the Tribunal, the Revenue has raised 07 grounds however, Grounds No.1, 2, 3 & 4 relate to the deletion of addition towards

Sumedha Arora, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-67(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1399/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Saurbh Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 154Section 90Section 90(2)

admittedly not complied with the mandatory requirement, she is not entitled to the credit of foreign tax claimed. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the rival submissions. The short controversy in the present case is whether the assessee is entitled to foreign

DCIT, Circle-14(2), New Delhi vs. Kissandhan Agri Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8734/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Atul Ninawat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

These grounds of appeal are allowed.” 5. Aggrieved by the relief granted by the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld. DR for the Revenue reiterated the observations made by the Assessing Officer and contended that the Assessing Officer has found on facts that

Rms Club & Resorts Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. JCIT Central Circle-28, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7689/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

were not complied with. He, therefore, decided the appeal ex-parte sustaining the impugned penalty against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 2 6. Hearing was fixed for 27.06.2022. None attended for the assessee. On written request of the assessee hearing fixed for 20.09.2022 was adjourned

ACIT Circle-20(2), New Delhi vs. Sadhna Aggarwal, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6620/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

nature, which require no specific adjudication. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed.” 6. Aggrieved by the relief, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have considered the rival submissions on the various points in issue. 7.1 At the outset, we observe that

ITO Ward - 3(4), Noida vs. Shobha Agnihotri, Noida

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1193/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Memebr D-4, Sec-27, Noida – 201 301 Noida-201 301 Pan No. Aewpa 0847 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -None- Revenue By Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.03.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Noida Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under:

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 68

order dated 28.12.2018 in Appeal No.706/E-File/2017-18/Noida allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised the following grounds: 1. “That on facts and in circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned AO erred both

Prithvee Propmart Pvt Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT Central Circle, Noida

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

ITA 7408/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sidhant Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 68

justified. Therefore addition made by AO is confirmed and grounds of appeal of the appellant are dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto. 6. On the day of hearing the Ld. AR sought adjournment on the ground that the assessee

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Ptc India Financial Services Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1268/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T Kipgen, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 14A

assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who deleted both the disallowances made by the Ld. AO. Dissatisfied, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal and both the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 5. On the issue of disallowance of depreciation, the Ld. DR submitted that the impugned

Dasari Bujji, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 20/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.20/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Dasari Bujji Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.40-54-5/31 Ward-1(1) Sanjeevayya Colony, Visakhapatnam Near Bethadha Church, Tatichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Bklpd8566J]

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

single month within due date specified in the respective Acts. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds : 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable

M/S Banke Bihari Foods (P) Ltd, Patna vs. Pr. CIT-1, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 27/PAT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Date of pronouncing the order : March 13, 2023 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna-1 dated 08.03.2022 passed under section 263 of the Income

Heena Export Corporation, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Faridabad

ITA 2060/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.2060/Del/2019, A.Y. 2014-15 Heena Export Corporation Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 1031/2, Link Road, Faridabad Tax, Central Circle-1, Pan : Aabfh7670N Faridabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 92C

deduction u/s 80IC at the rate of 100 percent which is restricted to Rs. 21.57 crores. 3. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal before the Tribunal :- “1.Because the action for restricting deduction u/s 80IC to an amount of Rs 21,57,41/997/- is being challenged on facts

M/S Kashiram Atmaram, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(1), Surat

In the result, ground No.1 of assessee is allowed

ITA 236/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.236/Srt/2022 (Ay 2015-16) (Hearing In Physical Court) Kashiram Atmaram Deputy Commissioner Of 3/1949, Siddhi Sheri, Income-Tax, Vs Salabatpura, Surat-395003 Central Circle-(1)(1)(1), Pan No. Aadfk 2670 H Room No.108, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

addition of interest expenses as well as taxing the additions under section 68 under section 115BBE. Further aggrieved assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the submission of Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee and Ld. Senior Departmental Representative

Manish, Hisar vs. ITO Ward - 2, Hisar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1896/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: 19.10.2018 & The Same Could Be Filed Only On 24.11.2020

Section 5

reflect or show any plausible or sufficient cause on the part of assessee for the delay of 780 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Shri Subodh Prakash Vs. JCIT [2017-TIOL ... reached to a logical conclusion that the assessee has successfully demonstrated and established sufficient cause explaining the delay of 780 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, application of assessee for condonation of delay is allowed and appeal is admitted for hearing. I.T.A.No.1896/Del/2020 7. The Ld. Counsel

Mother Gian Educational Society, New Delhi vs. ITO(E) Ward - 1(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 8173/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Mother Gian Educational Vs Ito(E), Society, F-I/U, Vishakha Ward-1(4), Enclave, New Delhi-110034. New Delhi. Pan-Aabtm0218K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Tarun Rohtagi, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2023

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69C

submissions, sustained the addition and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. Ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised by the assessee are against the legality of re- 6. opening of the assessment. 7. Ld. Counsel

Smt. Amina Anvar, Kollam vs. The DCIT, Circle 1, Alappuzha

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

ITA 850/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Amina Anvar Vs Dcit,Circle -1 Alappuzha City Opticals, Pipson Complex Pada South, Karunagappally Kollam Kerala-690 518 Pan – Agmpa5574B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri. Rajakannan, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-17. 2. The Solitary Issue That Arises For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Imposition Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The I.T.Act Amounting To Rs. 38,669/-.

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

ld.CIT(A) confirming the imposition of the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds. 1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed