“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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 139/VIZ/2022[2041-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2023AY 2041-15

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

Shri Laljibhai Kalubhai Miyani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(5), Surat

ITA 246/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Shri Jivrajbhai Kalubhai Miyani, I.T.O., A/31, 32 Ramdevpir Nagar, Ward 3(3)(2), Vs. Varachha Road, Varachha, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Aempm 3134 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Shri Laljibhai Kalubhai Miyani, I.T.O., 83, Shirdidham Society, Hira Ward 3(3)(5), Vs. Baug, Varachha Road, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Ablpp 5096 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 154Section 156Section 254(1)Section 50C

impugned order on 20/09/2017. However, the present appeal was filed on 30/04/2018, thus there is delay of 91 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay. In the application, the assessee/applicant contended that the impugned order passed ... file appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the order under Section 154 of the Act and simultaneously, the assesse also filed appeal before the Tribunal in challenging the order of ld. CIT(A). The assessee further stated that he is a senior citizen and having no business activity

Shri Jivrajbhai Kalubhai Miyani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(2), Surat

ITA 245/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Section 154Section 156Section 254(1)Section 50C

Sanjay Sharma, Greater Noida vs. ACIT, Noida

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

ITA 741/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sanjay Sharma, Vs Acit, Flat 4063, Ats Paradiso, Noida. Sec-Chi-04, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201308. Pan-Amkps9185L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Jai Bhagwan Sharma, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjay Nargas, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi Dated 23.12.2021. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Ground Of Appeal:- 1. “In The Instant Case The Appellant Assessee While Submitting The Income Tax Return For The Financial Year Ended On 31-03-2012 (Relevant To The Asst. Year 2012-13) Inadvertently Forgotten To Submit The Details For Claiming Exemption U/S. 54 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Did Not Mentioned The Details Of Sale Of Residential House Property & Utilization Of Long-Term Capital Gain Arising Out Of Sale Of Residential House Property In The Purchase Of Another/New Residential House Property. Consequently, Income Demand Of Rs. 5,61,107/- Was Raised Against The Appellant Assessee Followed By The Penalty Proceedings U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Apropos to ground of appeal, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee inadvertently did not claim exemption

Babita Goyal, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward -1, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1211/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Babita Goyal, Vs Ito, Dayal Bhawan Meham, Rohtak, Ward-I, Haryana-124112 Rohtak. Pan-Aglpg1864F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms.Rano Jain, Adv. & Ms. Mansi Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjay Nargas, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2023

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147

assessee and sustained the addition to the extent of Rs.87,270/-. 5. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a regular investor in shares since the previous year. The assessee had declared

Ashwani Sharma, Uttarpradesh vs. ITO Ward 1(1)Bhaisali Ground Meerut, Uttarpradesh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1506/DEL/2021[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Ashwani Sharma, Vs Ito, 22, Village Salarpur, Jalarpur, Ward-I, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-250001. Rohtak. Pan-Ayhps5179F Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Sanjay Nargas, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi Dated 09.09.2021. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “That A.O. As Well Cit(A) Ignore The Facts That The Assessee Have Living Address Sh. Ashwini Sharma, 22, Village Salrpur Jalalpur, Meerut 250002, Uttar Pradesh. 2. That The Assessee Has Right To Add, Modify Or Delete Any Ground During The Appeal Proceedings.”

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

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. 6. It is transpired from records that written submissions have been filed on behalf of the assessee by his Ld. Authorized Representative

Jupax Distributors Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO Ward 12(2), Kolkata

In the result, ground of appeal raised by the assessee assessment order allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 165/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Jupax Distributors Pvt. Ltd., A.C.I.T., Circle-4,Surat. 58A, Raja Basant Roy Road, (Old A.O.: Ito, Ward 12(2), Vs. Kolkata-700029. Kolkata (Wb) Pan No. Aaacj 6952 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 263Section 68

therefore, the appeal have become infructuous and accordingly dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the submissions of learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax- Departmental

M/S. C. J. Group & Gajras Builders & Developers, Panvel, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Bharuch

In the result, this ground of appeal is also dismissed

ITA 2/SRT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.02/Srt/2021 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) M/S C.J. Group & Gajras Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Builders & Developers, Vs Bharuch Bhoomi Land Mark, Plot No. 30-30A, Sector-17, Khan Colony, Panvel-410206, Maharashtra Pan No. Aagfc 4658 J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

present appeal on 05.01.2021. Thus, there is delay of 65 days in filing appeal beyond the statutory limit of sixty days for filing appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee submits that period of delay is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court ... differentiated the fact of present case vis-à-vis the case law relied by assessee. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 8 M/s C J Group & Gajras Builders & Developers 9. On perusal of various grounds of appeal, we find that assessee has not framed various

Niralkumar K. Shah, Valsad vs. ITO, Ward-6, Vapi

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse is allowed

ITA 776/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Niralkumar K Shah, I.T.O., B-001, Sharddha Co.Op Hsg. Soc., Ward-6, Vs. Gunan Road, Ta-Pardi, Valsad. Vapi. M. No. 9913800836 E Mail-Parinshahca@Gmail.Com Pan No. Bvjps 2700 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 234BSection 254(1)

applicable on the specific facts of the present case and accordingly confirmed the additions/disallowances. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 8. I have heard the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee and the learned Senior Departmental Representative

Vinod Bansal, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-35(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1751/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sahil Sharma, Adv.; &

Section 143(3)

before the Tribunal. Therefore, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that assessee was prevented with reasonable cause in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and there is no willful default by the assessee in filing the appeal. 4. On hearing both the sides, we observe that there is reasonable ... released during the mid of the pandemic Covid-19 i.e. May, 2020 and there is no willful default in delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned. 5. Coming to merits of the case we observe that

ACIT Central Circle-19, New Delhi vs. Chanchal Taneja, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1874/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usacit Vs. Chanchal Taneja Central Circle – 19, F-19/89, Sec-15, New Delhi Rohini, New Delhi Pan No. Acspt 2316 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ravi Pratap, Adv. Revenue By Shri T. James Singson, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.12.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :-

Section 132Section 139Section 148Section 153ASection 68

order dated 27.12.2018 in Appeal No.217/17-18 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: (i). “The order of Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in law and facts

Trilok Goel, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-31(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2118/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Ustrilok Goel Vs. Ito B-73, Duggal Colony, Ward – 31(4) Devli Road, Khanpur New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Afipg 7839 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None-- Revenue By Shri Avikal Manu, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.02.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :-

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 145(3)Section 148

separate comments. 7. As a result, the appeal is partly allowed. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal and has raise the following grounds: “1. That the assessee admitted that he was doing business of providing accommodation entry. In assessment order

Smt. Ritu Singh, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6504/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Princy Singla, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 68

represent the undisclosed income of the appellant. The addition made by the Assessing Officer, is therefore, sustained.” 7. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto. 8. The assessee has raised the following additional grounds of appeal before the Tribunal: “2.1 That ... undisclosed income of the appellant. The addition made by the Assessing Officer, is, therefore, sustained.” 27. Aggrieved, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal and ground No. 3 and 4 relate thereto. 28. The Ld. AR submitted that family differences were going on between the assessee

ACIT, Central Circle-1, Patna vs. Sonamoti Agrotech Pvt Ltd, Patna

ITA 110/PAT/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

Date of pronouncing the order : February 23, 2023 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna dated 02.01.2019 passed for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Revenue

Radha Govind Public Welfare Society, Ramgarh vs. CIT(Exemption), Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 66/PAT/2018[15-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Feb 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, Addl. CIT, DR

Section 12ASection 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

pass an assessment order afresh de novo, in accordance with law and after allowing opportunity to the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed on record a paper book containing 71 pages. Ld. Counsel referred to the assessment

Rishabh Mining Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-21(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3051/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249(2)

seeking rectification of the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act. 6. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the claim of the depreciation is the legal right of the taxpayer. It was stated

Rishabh Mining Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-21(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3050/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249(2)

Rishabh Mining Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-21(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3049/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249(2)

Rishabh Mining Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-21(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3048/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249(2)

Bijender Lather, Sonipat vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sonipat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1735/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Bijender Lather, Vs Ito, 5/6, Railway Colony, Gohana, Ward-I, Haryana-131301. Sonipat. Pan-Bcipb3318M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Akshat Sharma, Adv. Respondent By Shri Sanjay Nargas, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23.02.2023

Section 142(1)Section 144

after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 7. At the time of hearing, Ld. Authorized Representative (“AR”) of the assessee has given a cash flow statement. For the sake of clarity