← 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

Skf Engineering & Lubrication India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 534/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Skf Engineering & Lubrication Vs. Jcit, Circle - 4(1)(1) India Pvt. Ltd. Bmtc Building (Formerly Lincoln Helios (India) Ltd & 80 Feed Road, 6Th Block, Skf Engineering & Lubrication India Ltd Koramangala No.249/250, Bommasandra Bengaluru 560095 Indl. Area, Phase 3, Hosur Road Bengaluru 560099 Pan – Aaacl2061P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Deepak Chopra, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. Cit

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

nature of unascertained liability. 4. On further appeal the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us the learned A.R. submitted that the assessee is under contractual obligation to pay liquidated damages since the purchase orders raised

Puma Sports India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (OSD), Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 306/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 306/Bang/2022 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gopinath CHV, CIT DR
Section 143(3)

income while computing operating income. Accordingly the TP adjustment was revised by the TPO to Rs.6,59,34,345/-. The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the final assessment order passed giving effect to the directions of the DRP. The Tribunal vide order dated 13,.03.2020 remanded

K Ranadheer Reddy, Cuddapah vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 264/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Kasireddy Ranadheer Reddy Vs Dcit, Central Circle - 2(1) No.5/19, Kuravapalli (V) C.R. Building, Queen'S Road T. Sundupalli, Cuddapah 516214 Bengaluru 560001 Andhra Pradesh Pan – Amcpr4790E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, Itp Revenue By: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni
Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 154Section 156Section 270ASection 271ASection 69Section 69A

upheld and the grounds of appeal 1 to 3 as raised by the appellant are dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned A.R. submitted that the AO has levied the penalty under Section 270A of the Act on the ground that the income

Asst CIT 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Cg Power and Industrial Solutions Ltd.(Formerly Known As M/S Crompton Greaves Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1212/MUM/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: The Learned Cit(A).

Section 143(3)Section 263

meantime, the assessee also challenged the revision order dated 6.2.2013 passed by the learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act by filing appeal before the Tribunal. The ITAT, vide its order dated 28.2.2019 passed a revision order in the ITA No. 1994/Mum/2013. Noticing this fact the learned ... passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be survived. Accordingly he allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved the Revenue has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the parties on this issue. Admittedly the impugned order has been passed by the Assessing Officer to give effect

Shri. Vinod Raghavendra Deshpande, Bagalkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bagalkot

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

ITA 675/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Smt.Preethi Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 44A

confirmed the view taken by the Assessing Officer. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that the assessee is a lawyer by profession, aged 65 4 ITA No.675/Bang/2022. Sri.Vinod Raghavendra Deshpande. years

Continuserve Softech India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 242/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.242/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Continuserve Softech India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Prathik Tech Park, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Bengaluru. Sy. No.93/1, Veerasandra Village, Attibele Hobli, Hosur Road, Electronic City Phase 1, Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan : Aaacc 8342 A Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Darpan Kirpalani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Darpan Kirpalani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

passed the final order of assessment. To the extent the Assessee did not get relief from the DRP, the Assessee has preferred appeal before the Tribunal. IT(TP)A No.242/Bang/2021 Page 6 of 29 7. The main grievance of the Assessee projected in the grounds of appeal filed before

S.Seetharaman, Madurai vs. PCIT-1, Madurai

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

ITA 1546/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1546/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Guru Bashyam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 245D(4)Section 263Section 269SSection 269T

passed revision order by holding that the assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Aggrieved, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Before us, the ld.Counsel for the assessee filed copy of the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission order in the assessee

Income Tax Officer Ward -3(1), Mumbai vs. Bhadresh Jayantilal Shah, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1666/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1666/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito, Ward-3(1), Kalyan बिधम/ Bhadresh Jayantilal Shah 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, B-106 Shiv Sambhav Vs. Murbad Road, Kalyan (W), Chsl, Veer Savarkar 421301. Road, Dombivli (E), Thane-421201. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aeeps2956R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/ Nfac, Delhi Dated 11.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2010-11 Deleting The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. The Facts Of The Case Is That The Ao In The Quantum Assessment Dated 30.12.2014 Had Added Rs.1,46,635/- Being 100% Of The Alleged Bogus Purchases. On Appeal, The Ld. Cit(A)-1 By Order Dated 25.06.2018 Reduced The Same To The Extent Of 25% Of The Alleged Bogus Purchases. Resultantly, The Addition Was Restricted To Rs.36,659/-. On Further Appeal By Revenue, The Tribunal Upheld The Action Of The Cit(A) (Ita. No 5079 & 5080/Mum/2018) & Thus The Revenue Appeal Was Dismissed.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 271(1)(c)

Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. [(2010) 322 ITR 316 (Del.)] has held as under: “6. Aggrieved by this order, the revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing the submissions made on behalf of the revenue, came to the conclusion that the CIT(A) had taken the correct

M/S Hassan Hajee & Co., Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Mangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 870/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Praveen Karanth, D.R

years 2010-11 & 2011-12 were in the tax effect, which is below the monetary limit, where the department could have filed the appeals before this Tribunal. Accordingly, these appeals are not maintainable in view of the CBDT No.17/2019 dated 8.8.2019. Accordingly, these two appeals of revenue are dismissed ... note that the restriction was made by the assessee in respect of Assessment Year 200405 and from the grounds of memorandum of appeal before the Tribunal, we find that the assessee had challenged the aforesaid finding which is evident from paragraphs 1 and 2, therefore, the aforesaid submission

M/S Hassan Hajee & Co., Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Mangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 30/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Praveen Karanth, D.R

years 2010-11 & 2011-12 were in the tax effect, which is below the monetary limit, where the department could have filed the appeals before this Tribunal. Accordingly, these appeals are not maintainable in view of the CBDT No.17/2019 dated 8.8.2019. Accordingly, these two appeals of revenue are dismissed ... note that the restriction was made by the assessee in respect of Assessment Year 200405 and from the grounds of memorandum of appeal before the Tribunal, we find that the assessee had challenged the aforesaid finding which is evident from paragraphs 1 and 2, therefore, the aforesaid submission

Asst.C.I.T., Mangalore vs. M/S Hassan Hajee & Co, Mangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1363/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Praveen Karanth, D.R

years 2010-11 & 2011-12 were in the tax effect, which is below the monetary limit, where the department could have filed the appeals before this Tribunal. Accordingly, these appeals are not maintainable in view of the CBDT No.17/2019 dated 8.8.2019. Accordingly, these two appeals of revenue are dismissed ... note that the restriction was made by the assessee in respect of Assessment Year 200405 and from the grounds of memorandum of appeal before the Tribunal, we find that the assessee had challenged the aforesaid finding which is evident from paragraphs 1 and 2, therefore, the aforesaid submission

Asst.C.I.T., Mangalore vs. M/S Hassan Hajee & Co, Mangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1362/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Praveen Karanth, D.R

years 2010-11 & 2011-12 were in the tax effect, which is below the monetary limit, where the department could have filed the appeals before this Tribunal. Accordingly, these appeals are not maintainable in view of the CBDT No.17/2019 dated 8.8.2019. Accordingly, these two appeals of revenue are dismissed ... note that the restriction was made by the assessee in respect of Assessment Year 200405 and from the grounds of memorandum of appeal before the Tribunal, we find that the assessee had challenged the aforesaid finding which is evident from paragraphs 1 and 2, therefore, the aforesaid submission

Asst.C.I.T., Mangalore vs. M/S Hassan Hajee & Co, Mangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1361/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Praveen Karanth, D.R

years 2010-11 & 2011-12 were in the tax effect, which is below the monetary limit, where the department could have filed the appeals before this Tribunal. Accordingly, these appeals are not maintainable in view of the CBDT No.17/2019 dated 8.8.2019. Accordingly, these two appeals of revenue are dismissed ... note that the restriction was made by the assessee in respect of Assessment Year 200405 and from the grounds of memorandum of appeal before the Tribunal, we find that the assessee had challenged the aforesaid finding which is evident from paragraphs 1 and 2, therefore, the aforesaid submission

Asst.C.I.T., Mangalore vs. M/S Hassan Hajee & Co, Mangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1360/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Praveen Karanth, D.R

years 2010-11 & 2011-12 were in the tax effect, which is below the monetary limit, where the department could have filed the appeals before this Tribunal. Accordingly, these appeals are not maintainable in view of the CBDT No.17/2019 dated 8.8.2019. Accordingly, these two appeals of revenue are dismissed ... note that the restriction was made by the assessee in respect of Assessment Year 200405 and from the grounds of memorandum of appeal before the Tribunal, we find that the assessee had challenged the aforesaid finding which is evident from paragraphs 1 and 2, therefore, the aforesaid submission

Asst.C.I.T., Mangalore vs. M/S Hassan Hajee & Co, Mangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1359/BANG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Praveen Karanth, D.R

years 2010-11 & 2011-12 were in the tax effect, which is below the monetary limit, where the department could have filed the appeals before this Tribunal. Accordingly, these appeals are not maintainable in view of the CBDT No.17/2019 dated 8.8.2019. Accordingly, these two appeals of revenue are dismissed ... note that the restriction was made by the assessee in respect of Assessment Year 200405 and from the grounds of memorandum of appeal before the Tribunal, we find that the assessee had challenged the aforesaid finding which is evident from paragraphs 1 and 2, therefore, the aforesaid submission

Asst.C.I.T., Mangalore vs. M/S Hassan Hajee & Co, Mangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1358/BANG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Praveen Karanth, D.R

years 2010-11 & 2011-12 were in the tax effect, which is below the monetary limit, where the department could have filed the appeals before this Tribunal. Accordingly, these appeals are not maintainable in view of the CBDT No.17/2019 dated 8.8.2019. Accordingly, these two appeals of revenue are dismissed ... note that the restriction was made by the assessee in respect of Assessment Year 200405 and from the grounds of memorandum of appeal before the Tribunal, we find that the assessee had challenged the aforesaid finding which is evident from paragraphs 1 and 2, therefore, the aforesaid submission

Sivakumaran Pugazhendhi, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai-4

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 27/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.27/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sivakumaran Pugazhendhi, The Principal Commissioner 70 Raja Agraharam Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Poonamalle, Chennai-4. Chennai – 600 056. [Pan: Aiapp-7309-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2022 : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

substantial stake to the extent of Rs. 1.16 Crores.” Aggrieved against the revision order passed by PCIT, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate argued on behalf of the assessee. On the other hand, Shri

M/S Athenahealth Technology Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 82/CHNY/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.82/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Athenahealth Technology The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Module 3 & 4, 9Th Floor Vs. Corporate Circle-1(1), S.P Infocity, Dr. Mgr Road, Chennai. Kandaanchanvadi, Perungudi, Chennai – 600 096. [Pan: Aafca-3257-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sumeet Khurana, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 40ASection 40A(7)(a)Section 40A(7)(b)

return u/s. 143(1) of the Act made a disallowance. The CIT(A) also confirmed the disallowance. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Admittedly, the assessee has made these payments before the due date of filing of return of income

Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Chennai vs. Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir 3(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 72/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.71 & 72/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Corporate Office, Guna Complex, Income Tax, 433, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan:Aabcg2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Mrs. Sandhyaarti, T., F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Dated 14.09.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Delayed By 130 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. By Filing A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In The Form Of An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 & The Same Is Well Within The Extended Period

For Appellant: Mrs. Sandhyaarti, T., F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 37

assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18. 2. Both the appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by 130 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. By filing a petition for condonation of delay in the form of an Affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay due to outbreak ... seriously object to the submissions of the ld. Counsel. Since the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeals for adjudication. 3. The first common ground raised in both the appeals relates to confirmation

Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Chennai vs. Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir 3(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 71/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.71 & 72/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Corporate Office, Guna Complex, Income Tax, 433, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan:Aabcg2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Mrs. Sandhyaarti, T., F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Dated 14.09.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Delayed By 130 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. By Filing A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In The Form Of An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 & The Same Is Well Within The Extended Period

For Appellant: Mrs. Sandhyaarti, T., F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 37

assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18. 2. Both the appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by 130 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. By filing a petition for condonation of delay in the form of an Affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay due to outbreak ... seriously object to the submissions of the ld. Counsel. Since the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeals for adjudication. 3. The first common ground raised in both the appeals relates to confirmation