← 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jitender Kumar, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 2(2), Gurgaon

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

ITA 5868/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Jitender Kumar, Vs Ito, 805, Swarn Jayanti Society, Ward-2(2), Sector-54, Gurgaon -122002. Gurgaon. Pan-Ainpk6720E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Dileep Phoolakot, Adv. & Shri Dinesh Kumar, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23.02.2023

Section 147Section 148

addition of Rs.3,70,000/- and sustained the rest of the additions. 5. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Apropos to grounds of appeal, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had filed relevant evidences related to earning

Srf Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 774/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Ussrf Limited Vs. Acit Unitech Crest, Greenwood Range – 9, City Block – C, Sector – 45, Ltu, New Delhi Gurgaon – 122 003 Pan No. Aaacs 0206 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Shri R. K. Kapoor C.A. Shri Ravi Kumar Revenue By Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit (Dr) Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, New Delhi [For Short, Cit(A)] Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short, 'The Act'] For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under:-

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 92C

vide para 4.3 of his order, upheld the order of AO. 19. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 20. Before us, Learned AR reiterated the submissions made before AO and CIT(A) and further submitted that the issue raised

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Bilaspur vs. Mesers South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur

ITA 30/RPR/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

appeal, the CIT(Appeals) scaled down the assessed income to Rs.702,43,64,510/-. Aggrieved, the department carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its consolidated order dated 24.10.2005 dismissed the appeal of the revenue on a technical ground, i.e., for want of CoD approval authorizing ... cross-objections, within thirty days from the date of the receipt by him of the notice of the other party having filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The cross-objection is to be disposed of by the Tribunal as if it were an appeal presented before it. On a perusal

Addl.Commissioner of Income Tax Range -1, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 186/JAB/2008[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

appeal, the CIT(Appeals) scaled down the assessed income to Rs.702,43,64,510/-. Aggrieved, the department carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its consolidated order dated 24.10.2005 dismissed the appeal of the revenue on a technical ground, i.e., for want of CoD approval authorizing ... cross-objections, within thirty days from the date of the receipt by him of the notice of the other party having filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The cross-objection is to be disposed of by the Tribunal as if it were an appeal presented before it. On a perusal

Addl.Commissioner of Income Tax Range -1, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 185/JAB/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Feb 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

appeal, the CIT(Appeals) scaled down the assessed income to Rs.702,43,64,510/-. Aggrieved, the department carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its consolidated order dated 24.10.2005 dismissed the appeal of the revenue on a technical ground, i.e., for want of CoD approval authorizing ... cross-objections, within thirty days from the date of the receipt by him of the notice of the other party having filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The cross-objection is to be disposed of by the Tribunal as if it were an appeal presented before it. On a perusal

Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Bilaspur(Cg) vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 184/JAB/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Feb 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

appeal, the CIT(Appeals) scaled down the assessed income to Rs.702,43,64,510/-. Aggrieved, the department carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its consolidated order dated 24.10.2005 dismissed the appeal of the revenue on a technical ground, i.e., for want of CoD approval authorizing ... cross-objections, within thirty days from the date of the receipt by him of the notice of the other party having filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The cross-objection is to be disposed of by the Tribunal as if it were an appeal presented before it. On a perusal

Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Bilaspur(Cg) vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 183/JAB/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Feb 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

appeal, the CIT(Appeals) scaled down the assessed income to Rs.702,43,64,510/-. Aggrieved, the department carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its consolidated order dated 24.10.2005 dismissed the appeal of the revenue on a technical ground, i.e., for want of CoD approval authorizing ... cross-objections, within thirty days from the date of the receipt by him of the notice of the other party having filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The cross-objection is to be disposed of by the Tribunal as if it were an appeal presented before it. On a perusal

Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Bilaspur(Cg) vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 182/JAB/2008[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Feb 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

appeal, the CIT(Appeals) scaled down the assessed income to Rs.702,43,64,510/-. Aggrieved, the department carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its consolidated order dated 24.10.2005 dismissed the appeal of the revenue on a technical ground, i.e., for want of CoD approval authorizing ... cross-objections, within thirty days from the date of the receipt by him of the notice of the other party having filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The cross-objection is to be disposed of by the Tribunal as if it were an appeal presented before it. On a perusal

Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Bilaspur(Cg) vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 180/JAB/2008[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Feb 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

appeal, the CIT(Appeals) scaled down the assessed income to Rs.702,43,64,510/-. Aggrieved, the department carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its consolidated order dated 24.10.2005 dismissed the appeal of the revenue on a technical ground, i.e., for want of CoD approval authorizing ... cross-objections, within thirty days from the date of the receipt by him of the notice of the other party having filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The cross-objection is to be disposed of by the Tribunal as if it were an appeal presented before it. On a perusal

Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Bilaspur(Cg) vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 178/JAB/2008[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Feb 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

appeal, the CIT(Appeals) scaled down the assessed income to Rs.702,43,64,510/-. Aggrieved, the department carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its consolidated order dated 24.10.2005 dismissed the appeal of the revenue on a technical ground, i.e., for want of CoD approval authorizing ... cross-objections, within thirty days from the date of the receipt by him of the notice of the other party having filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The cross-objection is to be disposed of by the Tribunal as if it were an appeal presented before it. On a perusal

Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Bilaspur(Cg) vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 177/JAB/2008[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Feb 2023AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

appeal, the CIT(Appeals) scaled down the assessed income to Rs.702,43,64,510/-. Aggrieved, the department carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its consolidated order dated 24.10.2005 dismissed the appeal of the revenue on a technical ground, i.e., for want of CoD approval authorizing ... cross-objections, within thirty days from the date of the receipt by him of the notice of the other party having filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The cross-objection is to be disposed of by the Tribunal as if it were an appeal presented before it. On a perusal

Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Bilaspur(Cg) vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 176/JAB/2008[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Feb 2023AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

appeal, the CIT(Appeals) scaled down the assessed income to Rs.702,43,64,510/-. Aggrieved, the department carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its consolidated order dated 24.10.2005 dismissed the appeal of the revenue on a technical ground, i.e., for want of CoD approval authorizing ... cross-objections, within thirty days from the date of the receipt by him of the notice of the other party having filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The cross-objection is to be disposed of by the Tribunal as if it were an appeal presented before it. On a perusal

The DCIT-2(1), Indore vs. M/S. Century 21 Mall (P) Ltd., Indore

In the result, all appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 255/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Deshpande, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 68

appellant are therefore allowed. 35. Revenue is aggrieved by order of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue, and therefore came in appeal before the Tribunal. 36. Before us, the ld.DR supported order of the AO, while the ld.counsel for the assessee reiterated submissions made before the Century 21 Malls P.Ltd

The DCIT, 2(1), Indore vs. M/S. Centure 21 Mall Pvt. Ltd., Indore

In the result, all appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 952/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Deshpande, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 68

appellant are therefore allowed. 35. Revenue is aggrieved by order of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue, and therefore came in appeal before the Tribunal. 36. Before us, the ld.DR supported order of the AO, while the ld.counsel for the assessee reiterated submissions made before the Century 21 Malls P.Ltd

M/S Century 21 Malls P. Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT 2(1), Indore

In the result, all appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 949/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Deshpande, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 68

appellant are therefore allowed. 35. Revenue is aggrieved by order of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue, and therefore came in appeal before the Tribunal. 36. Before us, the ld.DR supported order of the AO, while the ld.counsel for the assessee reiterated submissions made before the Century 21 Malls P.Ltd

Orissa Chrome Export & Mining Company Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 4/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack22 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2014-15 Orissa Orissa Chrome Chrome Export Export & & Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-1(2), Mining Company Pvt Ltd., A Mining Company Pvt Ltd., A- Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar 65/1, 65/1, Nayapali, Nayapali, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaaco 4389 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ar P.R.Mohanty, Ar Revenue By : Shri Suresh Shivanand Shivanandan, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/0 02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/0 /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 Cit(A) -1, Bhubaneswar, 1, Bhubaneswar, Dated17.9.2019 In Appeal No. In Appeal No.0344/16-17 For The Assessment Year Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ld Ar Appeared For Th Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S E Assessee & Shri Suresh Shivanandan, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. , Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Shivanand

condoned because the assessee was not going to gain anything out of it.We, therefore, condone the delay of 34 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. It was submitted by ld AR that in the assessee’s appeal, three primary issues

Sirajunnisa Majeed, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 233/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.233/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sirajunnisa Majeed Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.32-29-5/3 Ward-3(1) Flat No.503, Mata Enclave Vijayawada Cococola Street, Maruthi Nagar Vijayawada [Pan : Bdepm8411R] (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 : 16.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2023

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 142(1)Section 69A

failed to offer any explanation about the nature and source of the deposits with documentary evidence. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred 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

Mukesh Goyal, Gangapurcity vs. ITO, Sawai Madhopur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 406/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Dinesh Kumar Jain (Adv.)For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 68Section 69

dismissed.” 5. As the assessee did not find any favour from the order of the ld. CIT(A) he has preferred the present appeal before the tribunal. To support the grounds so taken by the assessee, the 5 Mukesh Goyal vs. ITO ld. AR of the assessee has submitted

Manjulata Sahoo, Keonjhar vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 96/CTK/2021[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack21 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Smt. Manjulata Manjulata Sahoo, Sahoo, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sambalpur Pr. Cit, Sambalpur At: Banulal Colony, New At: Banulal Colony, New Market, Market, Keo Keonjhargarh, Keonjhar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Beips 1809 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.R.Panda, Ar B.R.Panda, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/0 02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/02 2/2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri B.R.Panda, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam

Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s.271(1)(c) for concealment of particulars of income. It was the submission that the order passed u/s.263 was subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its order in ITA No.163/CTK/2019 dated 14.10.2020 had confirmed the order u/s.263 of the Act. It was the submission

Vikram Singh, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. ITO Ward - 2(5), Noida

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6559/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon‟Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmavikram Singh, Vs. Ito, C/O. Chaman Singh, B-6 Ward-2(5), (Basement) Js Arcade, Near Noida Bikanerwala, Opp. Metro Pillar No. 65, Sector-18, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jmlps3035M

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mrinal Kumar Dass, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 207Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

order by dismissing the appeal for non compliance of mandatory provision of section 249(4) of the Act. The Assessee is now in appeal before the tribunal with the following grounds:- “1. Ld. Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction on the assessee, so without jurisdiction assessment order is void-ab-initio ... Therefore, he held that the appeal of the assessee is not admissible and dismissed it in limini. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts