← 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

Mr. Prem Mukundan, Ernakulam vs. The ITO Ward-2(2), Kochi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 790/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George George K. (Judicial Member), Ms. Padmavathy S. (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Padmanabhan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 192Section 199Section 250

name, cannot be claimed by the Appellant.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned A.R. submitted that the assessee had 3 Shri Prem Mukundan declared the income of his deceased wife in his return of income ... Bhooratnam & Co. I.T.T. Appeal Nos. 117 & 222 OF 2012 November, 23, 2012, it was held as follows: - "17. In our view, the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal have rightly held that the assesses is entitled to the credit of the TDS mentioned in the TDS certificates issued by the contractor

Karikode Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Thodupuzha vs. The ITO Ward-1, Thodupuzha

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

ITA 789/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Ms. Swathy S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 80P

settled the issue under Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) has committed an error in dismissing the appeal of the assessee against the assessment order

Edathuruthykaran Pavoo George, Ernakulam vs. The Acitcircle-1, Kochi

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

ITA 25/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Edathuruthykaran Pavoo George Vs Acit, Circle - 1(1) 40/2102, Market Road Kochi Ernakulam 682035 Pan – Abzpg4486E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. Athira Anil, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.03.2023 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 24.11.2021 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2009-10. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: - The Assessee Is An Individual, Who Is Running A Proprietary Concern In The Name Of M/S. Novelty Textiles. The Proprietary Concern Is A Wholesale Dealer In Textile Products. For Ay 2009-10 Return Of Income Was Filed On 28.09.2009 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,83,44,875/-. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 26.12.2011 By Assessing The Total Income At Rs.2,89,52,150/-. Subsequently Notice Was Issued

For Appellant: Smt. Athira Anil, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned A.R. submitted that the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the subsequent assessment year, i.e. AY 2010-11 on identical facts

Shri Shamjibhai M. Sheladiya, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir.-3(2), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 234/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.234/Srt/2022 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Shri Shamjibhai M Sheladiya Assistant Commissioner Of 11, Chandanbaug Society, Income-Tax, Circle-3(2), Vs Opp. Dharam Nagar, A.K. Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Road, Surat-395006 Gate, Surat-395001 Pan No: Afxps 3164 B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 28.12.2022 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 03.03.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 27.05.2022 For Assessment Year 2016-17, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 06.12.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs.15,00,000/- As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of The I.T. Act,1961. Sh.Shamjibhai M Sheladiya 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Invoking Provisions Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act & In Thereby Taxing Entire Cash Credit Of Rs.15,00,000/- At 30 Percentage.

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 68Section 80C

premium paid. The assessee simply stated that investment was shown in assessee’s balance-sheet. Further aggrieved the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. I have heard the submissions of Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee and Ld. Senior Departmental-Representative

M/S. Bhagabati Buil & Construction Pvt. Ltd, Cuttack vs. Pr. CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 114/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. M/S. Bhagabati Bhagabati Build Build & & Vs. Pr. Cit, Constructions Pvt Ltd., At: Constructions Pvt Ltd., At: Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 Madhupatna, Po: Link Road, Madhupatna, Po: Link Road, Ps:Madhupatna, Cuttack Ps:Madhupatna, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaecb 1801 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Ar Sandeep Kumar Jena, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/0 02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/0 /02/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr. Cit, Cit, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 Dated 27.11.2019 27.11.2019 In Appeal No.Itba/Ast/S/144/2019 Itba/Ast/S/144/2019-20/1021143134(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year2017- 18. 2. Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam ,Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam ,Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 144Section 263

show cause notice u/s.263 of the Act. These are the issues, which are not in the realm of consideration in respect of appeal before the Tribunal. The appeal before the Tribunal is against the order passed u/s.263 of the Act. The issues are restricted before the Tribunal to the issues

M/S Maruti Nandan Food Products Pvt Ltd, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 2(1), Patna

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

ITA 124/PAT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 68

provisions of section 68 of the Act in respect of loan transactions, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, Shri Dinesh Kumar, CA represented the assessee and Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, DR represented the revenue. 5. Ld. Counsel

ACIT, Circle- 15(1), New Delhi vs. Leon Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Departmental appeal is not

ITA 3266/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3266/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 बनाम Acit Leon Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Unit No. 201, 1St Floor, Vs. Circle 15(1), Room No.321, C.R. Bldg., Empire Apartments, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Sultanpur, M.G. Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aabcl4591M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 268A

3/18 dated 11.07.2018 issued by CBDT u/s 268A of the I.T. Act, it has been directed that the Department shall not file appeal before the Tribunal in case where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakhs. It is also directed that this Instruction will ... withdrawn/not pressed. The aforesaid circular has been amended by issuing further Circular No. 17/2019, whereby the monetary limit for filing Income-tax appeals before the Tribunal has been enhanced to Rs. 50 lakhs. Ld. DR in view of the above Board Circular did not press the Departmental appeal

Peela Govind Apparao, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 16/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.16/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 68Section 69A

confirming the order of the Ld. AO. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the above mentioned grounds of appeal. 4. Before me, it is the contention of the Ld. AR that

Hi-Tech Instruments & Systems, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 15/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.15/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2019-20) Hi-Tech Instruments & Control Vs. Income Tax Officer, Systems, Ward-4(1), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aadfh 9770 K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri D. Madhusudhana Rao, Ca ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri D. Madhusudhana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Civil Appeal No. 2833 of 2016, dated 12/10/2022). Aggrieved by the decision of the Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the above mentioned grounds of appeal. 3. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred

Naga Lakshmi Gunuputi, Bhimavaram vs. ACIT Central Circle-2, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 56/VIZ/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.52-54/Viz/2022 & 56/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19) Venkata Pavan Kumar Gunuputi Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of [Pan : Bsrpg1889F] Income Tax Central Circle-2 Satyanarayana Gunuputi Rajahmundry [Pan : Aftpg4842F] Naga Lakshmi Gunuputi [Pan : Afapg3496D] 19-9-3/3, Bank Colony Near Water Tank, Bhimavaram (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K.Siva Ram Kumar, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 28.02.2023 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri K.Siva Ram Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

grounds of appeal with documentary evidence despite several opportunities were accorded to the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T.(Appeals

Satyanarayana Gunuputi, Bhimavaram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 54/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.52-54/Viz/2022 & 56/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19) Venkata Pavan Kumar Gunuputi Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of [Pan : Bsrpg1889F] Income Tax Central Circle-2 Satyanarayana Gunuputi Rajahmundry [Pan : Aftpg4842F] Naga Lakshmi Gunuputi [Pan : Afapg3496D] 19-9-3/3, Bank Colony Near Water Tank, Bhimavaram (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K.Siva Ram Kumar, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 28.02.2023 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri K.Siva Ram Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

grounds of appeal with documentary evidence despite several opportunities were accorded to the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T.(Appeals

Satyanarayana Gunuputi, Bhimavaram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 53/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.52-54/Viz/2022 & 56/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19) Venkata Pavan Kumar Gunuputi Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of [Pan : Bsrpg1889F] Income Tax Central Circle-2 Satyanarayana Gunuputi Rajahmundry [Pan : Aftpg4842F] Naga Lakshmi Gunuputi [Pan : Afapg3496D] 19-9-3/3, Bank Colony Near Water Tank, Bhimavaram (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K.Siva Ram Kumar, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 28.02.2023 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri K.Siva Ram Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

grounds of appeal with documentary evidence despite several opportunities were accorded to the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T.(Appeals

Venkata Pavan Kumar Gunuputi, Bhimavaram vs. ACIT Central Circle -2, Rajahmundary

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 52/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.52-54/Viz/2022 & 56/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19) Venkata Pavan Kumar Gunuputi Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of [Pan : Bsrpg1889F] Income Tax Central Circle-2 Satyanarayana Gunuputi Rajahmundry [Pan : Aftpg4842F] Naga Lakshmi Gunuputi [Pan : Afapg3496D] 19-9-3/3, Bank Colony Near Water Tank, Bhimavaram (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K.Siva Ram Kumar, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 28.02.2023 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri K.Siva Ram Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

grounds of appeal with documentary evidence despite several opportunities were accorded to the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T.(Appeals

Ramesh Karaka, Ardhavaram vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tanuku

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 50/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.50/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ramesh Karaka Vs. Income Tax Officer 1-47, Velamapeta Ward-1 Ardhavaram Tanuku Ganapavaram Mandalam West Godavari [Pan : Eiepk7762M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K.Siva Ram Kumar, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 28.02.2023 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri K.Siva Ram Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 69

assessee. Accordingly, upheld the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned

Dulam Peda Tirupathi Rao, Alamuru Mandal vs. Incpme Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 208/VIZ/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.205/Viz/2022 To 208/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Dulam Peda Tirupathi Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.1-117, Chemundulanka Ward-1(4) Alamuru Mandal Visakhapatnam East Godavari [Pan : Ajkpd0253B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 144

gross receipts as per 26AS which worked out to Rs.23,56,450/- and completed the assessment. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds : 1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is erroneous

Dulam Peda Tirupathi Rao, Alamuru Mandal vs. Income Tax Offcer, Ward-1(4), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 207/VIZ/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.205/Viz/2022 To 208/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Dulam Peda Tirupathi Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.1-117, Chemundulanka Ward-1(4) Alamuru Mandal Visakhapatnam East Godavari [Pan : Ajkpd0253B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 144

gross receipts as per 26AS which worked out to Rs.23,56,450/- and completed the assessment. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds : 1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is erroneous

Dulam Peda Tirupathi Rao, Alamuru Mandal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 206/VIZ/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.205/Viz/2022 To 208/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Dulam Peda Tirupathi Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.1-117, Chemundulanka Ward-1(4) Alamuru Mandal Visakhapatnam East Godavari [Pan : Ajkpd0253B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 144

gross receipts as per 26AS which worked out to Rs.23,56,450/- and completed the assessment. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds : 1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is erroneous

Dulam Peda Tirupathi Rao, Alamuru Mandal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 205/VIZ/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.205/Viz/2022 To 208/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Dulam Peda Tirupathi Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.1-117, Chemundulanka Ward-1(4) Alamuru Mandal Visakhapatnam East Godavari [Pan : Ajkpd0253B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 144

gross receipts as per 26AS which worked out to Rs.23,56,450/- and completed the assessment. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds : 1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is erroneous

Nallamothu Vijaya Lakshmi, Guntur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 164/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.164/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Nallamothu Vijaya Lakshmi Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.11-5-19/11 Ward-2(1) Raja’S Gardens Guntur Guntur [Pan : Acbpn3248C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28 .02.2023

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 143(1)Section 154

stage of 154. Hence, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds : 3 I.T.A. No.164/Viz/2022, A.Y.2017-18 Nallamothu Vijaya Lakshmi, Guntur 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary

Sri Goluguri Nagi Reddy, Vijayawada vs. Aasistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 140/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.139/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2014-15) Sri Goluguri Nagi Reddy, Vs. Acit, Flat No.5, Shiridi Sai Apartments, Central Circle-1, Balasumudi, Bhimavaram. Rajahmundry. Pan: Abkpg 1138 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.140/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2017-18) Sri Goluguri Nagi Reddy, Vs. Acit, Flat No.5, Shiridi Sai Apartments, Central Circle-1, Balasumudi, Bhimavaram. Rajahmundry. Pan: Abkpg1138 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ca ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127(2)(a)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

paragraphs of this order: 2. At the outset the Ld. AR mentioned that there is a delay of 81 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee wherein the assessee explained the reasons for filing the appeal ... raised along with interest, he came to understand that the appeal was dismissed. He immediately approached Authorized Representative who has suggested for further appeal to the Tribunal. Hence the delay is caused due to the unawareness of knowledge. 3….. 4……. 3. On perusal of the explanation given by the assessee