← 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

Nandu Atmaram Wajekar, Panvel Dist Raigad vs. ACIT Panvel, Panvel Dist Raigad

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

ITA 67/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Nandu Atmaram Wajekar Acit, Panvel C001 Plot No.257, Shree Vs. Mahalaxmi Rupali Cinema Road, Panvel – 410206, Maharashtra Pan: Aadpw9879Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore Date Of Hearing : 18-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 183Section 187(1)Section 187(3)Section 271A

Assessing Officer by observing as under: 5 6 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that despite number of opportunities granted

Mr. Girish Kisandas Mehta, Pune vs. ITO Ward 9 (3), Pune

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

ITA 1259/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1259/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mr. Girish Kisandas Mehta, Vs. Ito, Ward-9(3), Pune. Mehta Niwas Bhairavnath Nagar, Kusgaon, Lonavala, Maval, Pune- 410401. Pan : Akepm3983A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Revenue By Smt. N. C. Shilpa : Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') It Be Held That The Assessment Proceedings Initiated U/S 147 Of The Act Are Invalid Since The Requisite Approval/Sanction U/S 151(Ii) Of The Act Is Not Taken. Accordingly, The Assessment Proceedings So Initiated Be Kindly Annulled & Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(14)Section 80C

assessee. 5. It is the above ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the addition on merit. The assessee has also raised legal grounds challenging the reopening of the assessment before the Tribunal for the first time

Achanak Associates Realtors Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1221/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

contain any reasonable cause for such delay. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that due to huge business loss the assessee was unable to repay

Achanak Associates Realtors Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1220/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

contain any reasonable cause for such delay. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that due to huge business loss the assessee was unable to repay

Nitin Narayan Keskar, Pune vs. CIT (Appeals)-5, Pune

In the result, appeal is dismissed in totality

ITA 1000/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Nitin Naryan Keskar Ito, Ward-12(1), Pune 999-C/B-1, Sunderban Society, Vs. Navi Peth, Pune – 411030 Pan: Abxpk0862G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore Date Of Hearing : 18-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

result, appeal is dismissed in totality.” 8. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the record. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case made addition to the extent

Kailash Radhakrishna Kshirsagar, Jalna vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna

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

ITA 1175/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 Kailash Radhakrishna Kshirsagar Ito, Ward-1, Jalna Opp. Old Jalna Merchant Co-Op. Vs. Bank, Devalgaon Raja Road, Jalna-431203 Pan: Abppk6300B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Department By : Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore Date Of Hearing : 17-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore
Section 133ASection 28Section 69

observing as under: 4 5 6 7 8 9 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. ADDITION OF ALLEGED BUSINESS RECEIPT

Vaibhav Das Mundhra, Kolkata vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 35/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Dec 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 295(1)Section 90

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2021-22 dated 05.12.2024. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance and/or denial of claims and/or ... ground is dismissed.” 4. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival submissions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. During the course of the appeal

Rajib Dutta Gupta, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 62(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 2078/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

barred by limitation by 41 days, the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay of 50 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee submitted that the assessee was suffering from illness in support of which the medical certificates have been filed. After perusing the same ... delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. ITA No.: 2078/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajib Dutta Gupta. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law as well as on facts

Sultania Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2057/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250Section 69C

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2018-19 dated 30.07.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - National ... confirmed the order of the Ld. AO. 5. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. At the outset, the Ld. AR drew our attention to page

Shreya Dey Sarkar, Pune, Maharashtra vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(4), Raiganj, West Dinajpur

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

ITA 1649/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Dec 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 250

instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. FOR THAT the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts ... appeal of the appellant is treated as dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 6. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, therefore, the case was heard with the assistance

Smt. Sneha Brahma, Legal Representative of Late Shyamal Kumar Brahma, Raiganj vs. ITO, Ward 2(4), Raiganj

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

ITA 1085/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 69A

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2013-14 dated 26.03.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “01. That the Assessment made under section 147 read with section 144B of the Income ... accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the notice

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle-, Cuddalore vs. M. Ramesh Jewellers, Tirukoyilure

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and the cross- appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 587/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Gautam S. Mukundan, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69BSection 69C

appellant in this regard are dismissed” 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal, challenging the relief granted by the ld.CIT(A) in adopting a rate of Rs.1,874/- per gram for unaccounted gold jewellery, as against

M Ramesh Jewellers, Tirukoilur vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Villupuram

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and the cross- appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1539/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Gautam S. Mukundan, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69BSection 69C

appellant in this regard are dismissed” 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal, challenging the relief granted by the ld.CIT(A) in adopting a rate of Rs.1,874/- per gram for unaccounted gold jewellery, as against

ADIT, Chennai vs. S A A Ispahani Trust, Chennai

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

ITA 2125/CHNY/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. G. Seetharaman, FCAFor Respondent: 17.11.2025
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)

used as application towards the objects. 5. Aggrieved by the above order of the Ld.CIT(A) for the A.Y.2003-04, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal stating that the loan taken is not for charitable purpose but for construction of commercial complex which was disallowed as application during

Pramod Laxman Bhor, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals under consideration stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6551/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Sudhir Gudhate, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Ld. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

Chartered Accountant by Balan Narayanan & Company. 9. We further observe that identical issue, qua, delay of 454 days in filing of appeal before the Tribunal has also been cropped up in assessee‟s own case challenging order dated 22.11.2023 for A.Y. 2017-18 passed by the then

Pramod Laxman Bhor, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals under consideration stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6550/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Sudhir Gudhate, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Ld. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

Chartered Accountant by Balan Narayanan & Company. 9. We further observe that identical issue, qua, delay of 454 days in filing of appeal before the Tribunal has also been cropped up in assessee‟s own case challenging order dated 22.11.2023 for A.Y. 2017-18 passed by the then

Pramod Laxman Bhor, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals under consideration stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6451/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Sudhir Gudhate, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Ld. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

Chartered Accountant by Balan Narayanan & Company. 9. We further observe that identical issue, qua, delay of 454 days in filing of appeal before the Tribunal has also been cropped up in assessee‟s own case challenging order dated 22.11.2023 for A.Y. 2017-18 passed by the then

Catholic Education Society, Mumbai vs. Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5030/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalcatholic Education Society Vs Income Tax Department Cit 338, Bb, Michael Villa, New (Exemption) Hall Road, Kurla (W), Mumbai Room No.601, 6Th Floor, 400070 Cumballa Hill Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Pan: (Aaatc5704H) Mumbai 400026 Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Dr K Shivram Sr. Advocate & Shri Shashi Bekal, Ca Respondent By : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(Exemptions), Mumbai Vide Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2024- 25/1075306167(1) Dated 30.03.2025 Passed Against Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 05.09.2022 For Ay 2020-21. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption) (Cit(E)) Has Erred In Issuing A Notice & Passing An 2

For Appellant: Dr K Shivram Sr. Advocate and Shri Shashi Bekal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

payments made to specified persons u/s. 13(3) so as to ascertain reasonableness, genuineness and admissibility of the expenses. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4.1. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that case of the assessee was selected for limited purpose of examining payments

Sh. Satpal Singh, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2761/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandrash. Satpal Singh, Income Tax Officer, C/O Sh. P.K. Dublish, Ward-2 (3), Meerut. Advocate, 205/5, Vs. Thapar Nagar, Meerut. Pan-Bllps5466B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.12.2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar U.S., Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Meerut [“Ld.Cit(A)”, For Short], Dated 16.12.2010 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment Order Came To Be Passed On 29.12.2009 U/S 1243(3) Of The Act By Making The Following Additions: I. Rs.1,49,761/- On Account Of Gross Profit On Suppressed Sales. Ii. Rs.1,16,750/- On Account Of Unexplained Capital. Iii. Rs.16,00,000/- On Account Of Unexplained Income. Iv. Rs.36,87,216/- Towards Unexplained Debtors. Satpal Singh Vs. Ito 3. Aggrieved By The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2009, Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order Dated 16.10.2010 Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. As Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 16.10.2010, Assessee Preferred The Present Appeal.

Section 124Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

observed above, the assessee being a chronic defaulter who has not appeared before the Ld. CIT(A). Even after filing the appeal before the Tribunal, failed to appear and appeal has been once dismissed on 14.09.2015 which has been recalled Misc. Applications No.140/Del/2018 vide order dated 26.04.2019. Even after restoring

Saurav Malik, Dehradun vs. Income Tax Officer, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 49/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Saurav Malik Vs Ito 100/2, Bell Road Clement Town 15A, Subhash Road, Near Hilton School, Dehradun Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-248002 Pan-Bdypm6527J Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Rajiv Sahini, Ca Revenue By Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.12.2025

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

which stood dismissed vide order dated 31.01.2025. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- “1. Ground 1: Unexplained Cash Deposits - The AO made an addition of 269,36,030/- on account of unexplained cash