“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

Arun Kumar Yadav, Bilaspur vs. Au/NFAC, NFAC

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

ITA 778/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.778/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Arun Kumar Yadav Hn. 38/740, Behind Kediya House, Keshav Murra Batta Road, Bilaspur, Hemu Nagar, Towra, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Alspy0289J

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

office there is no staff to assist him and he is the only person to draft and prepare the document for filing appeal before the Tribunal and supporting staff are not aware about the filing of the appeal before the Tribunal and therefore, the said delay has occurred. The Revenue

Sanjayji Sumnji Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Patan

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 310/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Maulik Kansara, ARFor Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT-DR

Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Condonation of Delay 3. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 10 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of delay explaining the circumstances which led to the delay. After considering the submissions ... considered view that the delay deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the delay of 10 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. On Merits 4. The brief facts of the case are that

Kshatriya Vikas Parisad Gujarat, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

Accordingly, in the absence of any satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of 1109 days, the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay is dismissed

ITA 2485/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Ms. Mauli Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR

application of the assessee. 5. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 1109 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay in filing

Shri P P Vasudevanand Saraswati Tembe Swami Maharaj & Shri P P Loknathtirth Swami Maharaj Trust, Pune vs. CIT(Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 9/PUN/2026[2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Mar 2026AY 2026-27

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreshri P P Vasudevanand Saraswati Tembe Cit(Exemption), 42/17, Shri Vasudeo Niwas, Pune Vs. Vasudev Ashram Road, Erandavana, Pune – 411004 Pan: Aaats4766M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Abhay Avachat Department By : Shri Amit Bobde, Cit Date Of Hearing : 12-03-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-03-2026

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvachatFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 80GSection 80G(5)

under: 3 4 3. Aggrieved with such refusal for grant of approval u/s 80G by Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune has erred in rejecting application for approval /renewal filed by Assessee under Clause

Shri Vishal Vasant Bandewar, Pune vs. DCIT Cir- 2, Pune

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

ITA 22/PUN/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, CIT DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

filed by the assessee for want of prosecution. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC drew the attention of the Bench

Vineet Tiwari, Bangalore vs. Circle 12, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3169/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Santanu Kumar Sarangi (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 192Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

file the appeal within the specified period. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. For that, order u/s 250 of the IT Act dated 16.12.2025 as passed

Vineet Tiwari, Bengaluru vs. Circle 12, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3168/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Santanu Kumar Sarangi (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 192Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Suman Nilakanth Masal, Ahemdnagar vs. ITO Ward-2, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 2279/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2018-19 Suman Nilakanth Masal Ito, Ward – 2, 983, Masal Colony, Rashin Karji, Vs. Ahmednagar Ahmednagar – 414403 Pan: Bvrpm6017J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pramod S Shingte Department By : Shri Amit Bobde, Cit Date Of Hearing : 11-03-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-03-2026

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 69

Assessing Officer u/s 270A of the Act. 3 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the quantum appeal of the assessee was pending before

Bimal Kumar, Ambala Cantt vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Ambala

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

ITA 940/CHANDI/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250

Officer and confirmed the addition of Rs. 61,72,500/-. 5. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had filed voluminous documentary evidence before the Assessing Officer as well as before

Hitesh Sharma, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Palampur, Palampur

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

ITA 1487/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

grounds of appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. 6. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. During the course of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is illegal and arbitrary

Mohinder Singh, Ropar, Punjab vs. ITO Ward-2(2), Punjab

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1454/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During the course of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the authorities below have grossly erred in treating the cash deposits as unexplained

Merit Data and Technology Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 4(1) Chennai, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the stay application of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 958/CHNY/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.958/Chny/2026 & Sa No.74/Chny/2026 (Arises In Ita No.958/Chny/2026) िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2022-23 M/S. Merit Data & Technology Pvt. The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs. Corporate Ward-4(1), Sp 52, 3Rd Street, Ambattur Industrial Chennai. Estate S.O., Ambattur, Tiruvallur – 600 058. Pan: Aadcl 8191M

For Appellant: Mr. K. Prasanna, C.A )*For Respondent: Mr. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 143(3)

passed an order giving effect whereby the TP adjustment was increased to Rs.8,60,29,525/-. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final assessment order passed by the A.O pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 3. The facts pertaining to the impugned TP adjustment ... order giving effect based on DRP directions, whereby the TP adjustment was enhanced to Rs. 8,60,29,525/-. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the A.O pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 4. We have heard the parties

Venkatesh, Tirunelveli vs. ITO, Tirunelveli

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 889/CHNY/2026[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:889/Chny/2026 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 & S.A. No. 67/Chny/2026 [In Ita No. 889/Chny/2026] Shri Venkatesh, The Income Tax Officer, No.34-A, Baskaran Street, Vs. Ward 4, Tirunelveli Town S.O., Tirunelveli. Tirunelveli – 627 006. Pan: Akfpv 8799N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri P. Gunasekaran, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. T.Mythili, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.03.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 17.12.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2019-20. Ita No.889/Chny/2026 & :- 2 -: Sa No.67/Chny/2026 2. At The Very Outset, We Notice That The First Appellate Authority’S (Faa) Order Is Ex-Parte, Since There Was No Compliance From The Assessee To The Five Notices Issued From The Office Of The First Appellate Authority. Further, We Also Note That The Assessment Has Been Completed On Best Judgment Basis U/S.144 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri P. Gunasekaran, CAFor Respondent: Ms. T.Mythili, JCIT

Section 144Section 148ASection 250Section 69

hearing notices and hence, the appeal was decided ex-parte confirming the addition made by the AO. 4. Aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the source of investment was out of gifts received from the assessee’s mother and sister, wherein

Karthikeyan Selvam, Nagapattinam vs. ITO, Ward-1, Nagapattinam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4028/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4028/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, C.A )*For Respondent: Smt. Samatha Mullamudi, Addl. CIT

Section 148Section 250Section 44A

genuineness of the cash deposit and did not substantiate any verifiable evidence for the low margin commission income. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized Representative

Lima Loundes Marie, Puducherry vs. ITO, Ward-3, Puducherry

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

ITA 3957/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

For Appellant: Mr. Girish Kumar,S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148A

delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. Lima Lourdes Marie :- 3 -: 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The only issue that arises

Mr. Yogesh Santosh Gulvi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office Ward 1(4), Mumbai

Accordingly Ground No.1 to 14 raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 554/MUM/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: this tribunal on the following grounds as under:- 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without deciding the case on merits and without appreciating the facts submitted in the Grounds of Appeal.

For Appellant: None

Section 144Section 147Section 69A

brevity and convenience. Assessment Year 2012-2013 2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this tribunal on the following grounds as under:- 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ... Order was dismissed by Learned CIT(A) by way of ex-parte order, dated 12/09/2025. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced at Paragraph 2 above. 5. On perusal of the statement of facts filed before Learned CIT(A), we find

Balwant Laxmanji Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeal

ITA 8454/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Bharat Kumar

Section 153CSection 250

subsequently confirmed by Assessing Officer was subsequently confirmed by Commissioner of Income Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 4.1 Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order ... therefore, therefore, therefore, renders renders renders the the the orders orders orders passed passed passed by by by the the the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal vulnerable. The assessee was Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal vulnerable. The assessee was Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal vulnerable. The assessee was bound

Balwant Laxmanji Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeal

ITA 8453/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Bharat Kumar

Section 153CSection 250

Balwant Laxmanji Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeal

ITA 8452/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Bharat Kumar

Section 153CSection 250

Bombay Minerals Limited, Khambhalia vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue

ITA 5410/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurang R. Sanghavi (Virtually appeared)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

assessee. Aggrieved the assessee. Aggrieved, both the assessee and the Revenue are in both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above