← 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

Puran Pradhan, Darjeeling vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Darjeeling

ITA 86/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 86/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Puran Pradhan, ...................................Appellant Chandra Bhawan, Bloomfield Cess Road, Dali, Darjeeling-734101, West Bengal [Pan: Aqdpp2162M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,..............................Respondent Ward-3(3), Darjeeling, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, A.J.C. Bose Road, P.O. & Dist. Darjeeling, Pin-734101 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Smt. Mita Rizvi, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

Section 250

Date of pronouncing the order : December 16th, 2022 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Siliguri dated 06.08.2019 passed for A.Y. 2014-15. 1 Assessment Year

Hrishikesh Mega Townwhip (P) Ltd., Howrah vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 47/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 47/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Hrishikesh Mega Township (P) Limited,.......Appellant Flat Ah-5- 8/15, Lake View Housing Complex, Near Anandamayee Ashram, B/1, Drainage Canel Road, Howrah-711102 [Pan: Aacch1729C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,..............................Respondent Ward-9(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 5Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 68

Date of pronouncing the order : December 16, 2022 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata dated 03.10.2016 passed for A.Y. 2009-10. 1 Assessment Year

Rahee Jhajharia E to E (Jv), Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir.-32, Kolkata

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

ITA 135/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 135/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Rahee Jhajharia E To E (Jv),..................Appellant “Kemwell Manor”, 5Th Floor, 10/D/2, Ho Chi Minh Sarani, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aabar5042H] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,..Respondent Circle-32, Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri K.K. Khemka, Advocate & Shri Anuj Musaddi, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 40A(2)(b)Section 92B

Date of pronouncing the order : December 16, 2022 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 22, Kolkata dated 26.03.2021 passed for A.Y. 2015-16. 1 Assessment Year

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Cabcon India (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals in I

ITA 1131/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

instant appeal within statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: LT.A. No.: 1129/Kol/2019 for AY 2014-15: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction. 8. Aggrieved, revenue is now in appeals before this Tribunal challenging the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.2,33,50,000/- and Rs.2

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Cabcon India (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals in I

ITA 1129/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

instant appeal within statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: LT.A. No.: 1129/Kol/2019 for AY 2014-15: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction. 8. Aggrieved, revenue is now in appeals before this Tribunal challenging the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.2,33,50,000/- and Rs.2

Faze Three Autofab Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-6(1)-2., Mumbai

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

ITA 2607/MUM/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U. Matkarni
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 43A

ground that the assessee has not made due compliance before the first appellate authority. 7. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The ld. Authorized Representative (AR for the assessee) contended that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order by not considering

Faze Three Autofab Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-6(1)-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 2606/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U. Matkarni
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 43A

ground that the assessee has not made due compliance before the first appellate authority. 7. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The ld. Authorized Representative (AR for the assessee) contended that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order by not considering

Faze Three Autofab Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Circle 6(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2605/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U. Matkarni
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 43A

ground that the assessee has not made due compliance before the first appellate authority. 7. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The ld. Authorized Representative (AR for the assessee) contended that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order by not considering

Faze Three Autofab Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Circle 6(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2604/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U. Matkarni
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 43A

ground that the assessee has not made due compliance before the first appellate authority. 7. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The ld. Authorized Representative (AR for the assessee) contended that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order by not considering

Navkar Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4722/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri.Mahender Ahuja
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 151

pleased to confirm the action of the AO. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the learned CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. It has been brought to my notice by the learned Departmental Representative (DR) that in the first round of appeal this Tribunal

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Mysore vs. Mr. Shorff Krishnarajasetty Satheesha, Kodagu

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 997/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sri.Akkal Dudhwewala, FCA
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153C

Sri.Shroff Krishnarajasetty Satheesha. 22 ITA No.997/Bang/2022. Sri.Shroff Krishnarajasetty Satheesha. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The learned Departmental Representative relied on the order of the A.O. and submitted that during the course of search, statement was recorded

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Limited( Formerly Known As Symphoney Teleca Corporation India Private Limited), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 631/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.631/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Harman Connected Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2) Services Corporation India V. Bangalore. Private Limited (Formerly Symphony Telca Corporation India Pvt. Ltd.) No.3 & 3A, Eoiz Industrial Area, Survey No.85 & 86, Sadarmangala Village, K.R.Puram, Hobli Bangalore – 560 066 Pan : Aabcg5658E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Smt.Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2022 Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Revenue Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2011-2012. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956. The Assessee Is Engaged In Providing Software Development Services To Its Group Companies As Well As Third Parties. For The Assessment Year 2011-2012, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2011 Declaring Gross Total

For Appellant: Smt.Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92C

Total Assessed Income 12,47,64,644 4. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the Revenue has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The grounds raised by the Revenue reads as follows:- “I. The directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel are opposed to law and facts of the case

Samriddhi Petroproducts Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 580/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2014-15 Samriddhi Petroproducts Vs. Dy. C.I.T Private Limited Circle 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aarcs2499F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Mohd Afzal Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac, Delhi Relating To A.Y. 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Wholesale & Retail Trade Of Auto Gas. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2014 Declaring Nil Income After Setting Off Of Brought Forward Losses Of Rs.28,54,332/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) On 12.09.2016 Determining The Total Income At Rs.2,16,571/-. Subsequently, The Learned Cit Assumed

For Appellant: Advocate Mohd AfzalFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

able to defend its grounds. Hence, grounds raised rejected.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) 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 against the law, weight

Goldstone Trading Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT -9 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2043/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2006-07
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 68

furnish any comments on the remand report and hence the Ld CIT(A) confirmed the addition. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before the Tribunal, the assessee has raised the legal ground challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee does

M/S. Ramniklal Sivji Savla, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-30, Mumbai

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

ITA 1261/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2009-10
Section 143(1)Section 148

learned CIT(A) restricted the addition to 12.50% of the value of the alleged bogus purchases. Still aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. It was noticed that the copy of order of the learned CIT(A) filed by the assessee before the Tribunal is incomplete

Mangayarkarasi Subramaniam, Erode vs. ITO, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 850/CHNY/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.850/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Mangayarkarasi Subramaniam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 53/1, Avvaiyar Street, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Erode. 638 011. Delhi. [Pan:Arhpm8094N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 08.09.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That As Per Ast/Air Information On Itd Query, The Assessee Has Deposited Cash Amounting To ₹.13,90,000/- In Her Saving Bank Account During The Financial Year 2012-13 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. Since The Assessee Has Not Filed Return Of Income, The Assessing Officer Initiated

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

extent of ₹.10,00,000/- and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that before the ld. CIT(A), by filing the bank statement, the assessee has explained in detail

Farida Shoes Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 849/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.849/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-2020 M/S. Farida Shoes Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner No. 151/4, Mount Poonamallee Road, Of Income Tax, Ramapuram, Chennai 600 089. Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai [Pan:Aaacf0496Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 10.10.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-2020. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019-20 On 28.11.2019 Declaring Total Income Of ₹.16,50,00,300/-. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 41Section 43B

appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice RPAD on record or filed any adjournment petition. Hence, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing

Shri Ramakrishnan Senthil Kumar, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non-Corporate Circle - 14, Chennai

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

ITA 754/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.754/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Ramakrishnan Senthil Kumar, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of New No. 80, Old No. 25, I Avenue, Income Tax, Ashok Nagar, Chennai 600 083. Non Corporate Circle 14, Chennai. [Pan:Ammps5348D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. Abhisek Murali, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Mohan Reddy, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-3, Chennai, Dated 15.03.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Dr. Abhisek Murali, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 263

short]. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 472 days delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In the form of an affidavit, 2 I.T.A. No. 754/Chny/22 the assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay, wherein, following submissions were made ... only an afterthought, but not a case of ignorance of law or unaware of provisions in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the PCIT u/s.263 of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the reasons given

Senthilmurugan Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Madurai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-2, Madurai

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

ITA 768/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Senthil Murugan Jewellers Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., 106, 107 & 108, South Income Tax, Avani Moola Street, Madurai 625 001. Corporate Circle 2, [Pan:Aajcs8546F] Madurai 625 002. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Mohan Reddy, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madurai-1, Madurai, Dated 31.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

short]. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 449 days delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In the form of an affidavit, the assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay, wherein, following submissions were made: 2 I.T.A. No. 768/Chny/20 “1. That ... only an afterthought, but not a case of ignorance of law or unaware of provisions in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the PCIT u/s.263 of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the reasons given

Sambros Tex Global Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle I, Coimbatore

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

ITA 725/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Sathyanarayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154

115JB of the Act that is applicable to the impugned A.Y. by correctly not reckoning the prior period income.” Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee filed copies of original return of income for assessment year 2007-08, revised return