“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

Saryu Devi, Ranchi vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Ranchi

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

ITA 251/RAN/2025[20-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi22 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.251/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Saryu Devi…..………...…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant W/O Hira Nath Singh, Neori, Vikas, Sadar Ranchi, Jharkhand- 835217. [Pan: Geppd1201D] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Ranchi…..….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri M. K. Choudhury, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 10.06.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Lady, Residing In A Village Area. She Had Not Filed Any Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2021–22 As, According To Her, She Had No Taxable Income. The Assessee Was Not Registered On The Income-Tax E-Filing Portal During The Relevant Period. Her E-Filing Registration Was Done For The First Time On 09.03.2025. The Ao Received Information Through The Risk Management Strategy (Rms) That The Assessee Had Purchased Immovable Property For A Consideration Of ₹30,70,000. Based On This Information, Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Act Were Initiated After Following

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69A

investment and did not comply with statutory notices. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. At the time of hearing the Ld. AR of the assessee raised both legal and factual grounds, invalid Assumption of Jurisdiction as no notice

Simmi Gupta, Chandigarh vs. DCIT/ACIT TDS, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 212/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 212/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Simmi Gupta, The Dcit/Acit (Tds), 1076, Sector 37-B, Vs Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Afwpg4983R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 148Section 194Section 201

Date of Hearing : 10.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 22.12.2025 HYBRID HEARING O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, JM The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 23.01.2025 passed for assessment year

Biren Manna, Mumbai vs. ITO -Ward-23(1)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6373/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69B

terms of section 69 of the Act. On further appeal, the ld CIT(A), upheld the addition. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced as above. 3. In all the grounds the sole issue is of addition of Rs.81,00, 00 as unexplained

Sumer Singh, Rewari vs. ITO, Rewari (Jao), Rewari

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

ITA 5214/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sumer Singh (Self Assessee)For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, SR. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 250

filed by the assessee on 07.11.2023, the appeal was dismissed ex-parte vide order dated 29.11.2023. Further aggrieved, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, it has been submitted by the Ld. AR that no proper opportunity of being heard was given

Sanjay Shukla, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. Assessing Officer NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5201/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, SR. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69Section 69A

assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 10.07.2025. Aggrieved further, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, the Ld. AR has submitted that the impugned property has been purchased by the assessee jointly with his wife

Hlg Develjopers Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward, New Delhi

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

ITA 5199/DEL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, SR. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 250

dismissed the appeal in limine on account of the inordinate delay vide order dated 24.06.2025. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, the Ld. AR has submitted that the reasons of delay were explained before Ld. CIT(A), however, these were not considered

Nazir Ahmad Bhat, Anantnag vs. ITO, Anantnag

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

ITA 274/ASR/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Vaseem Ahmad, C. A

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 251(2)

lakhs and for the assst year 2012-13 the same is enhanced by Rs. 50.43 lakhs. 7. Now the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal for both the years , on various grounds contained in the memo of appeal and in course of hearing the Ld AR submitted that

Nazir Ahmad Bhat, Anantnag vs. ITO, Anantnag

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

ITA 273/ASR/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar19 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Vaseem Ahmad, C. A

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 251(2)

Income Tax Officer, Ward23 Abohar, Abohar vs. Deepak Electronics, Jalalabad

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes as per the above directions

ITA 660/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 660/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Ward-23, Vs. Deepak Electronics, Lic 2Nd Abohar. Building Floor, Gaushala Road, Abohar, (Appellant) Distt. Fazilka. [Pan:-Aaefd5598C] (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 5

Year: 2017-18 the appeal are allowed. 8. In result, the appeal of the appellant is allowed.” 6. Now, the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal on the ground contained in the memorandum of appeal. 7. In course of hearing, the ld. DR submitted that the ld. first appellate

Incometax Officer (Exemption Ward), Rajahmundry vs. Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Machilipatnam

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid order

ITA 77/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 77/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward V. Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple Shiva Towers, 5Th Floor Batchupet, Machilipatnam Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry – 533103 Krishna District – 521001 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaajs4922R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 250Section 254(1)

which is below the prescribed monetary Page No. 4 I.T.A. No. 77/VIZ/2025 C.O. No. 8/VIZ/2025 Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple limit for preferring the appeal before the Tribunal, we are of the considered view that the Revenue’s appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, Ground No.2 raised in the assessee

Ratnajyot Steel and Pipes Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1414/AHD/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyaldcit, Ratnajyot Steel & Pipes Vs. Central Circle 1(1), Private Limited, Ahmedabad Shalvik Avenue, Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad-380013 [Pan : Aaecr 2809 P] Ratnajyot Steel & Pipes Dcit, Vs. Private Limited, Central Circle 1(1), Shalvik Avenue, Ahmedabad Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad-380013 [Pan : Aaecr 2809 P] Dcit, Mukesh Mohanlal Vaghela Vs. Central Circle 1(1), 9, B-Wing, Ishwar Niwas, Ahmedabad 3Rd Floor, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400004 [Pan : Aaspv 6989 M]

For Appellant: Ratnajyot Steel and Pipes Pvt Ltd

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee and Revenue, both are in appeal before the Tribunal. The Revenue is in appeal against the relief allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) while the assessee is in appeal against the addition sustained

DCIT Central Circle 1(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Ratnajyot Steel and Pipes Private Limited, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1313/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Ratnajyot Steel and Pipes Pvt Ltd

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

DCIT Central Circle 1(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Mukesh Mohanlal Vaghela, Mumbai

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

ITA 1234/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Ratnajyot Steel and Pipes Pvt Ltd

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

Lalchand Narayan Bhakt, Jalna vs. ITO Ward 2, Jalna

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

ITA 93/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 2(47)(v)

Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are party allowed.” 8. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The learned Assessing Officer (AO) erred in making an addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- being

Late Shri Dilipkumar Tulsidas Through L/H Dharini Dilipkumar Shah, Pune vs. ITO Ward 3(3), Pune

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

ITA 897/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: ΝΟΝΕFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 251Section 69

making a fresh assessment within the time limit set by the Finance Act, 2024. 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following solitary ground of appeal : "Ground No. 1 1.1 On the facts and Circumstances of the case

R B Diamond House, Jalgaon vs. Pne-C-1, Range -25, Circle -1, Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax- Jalgaon

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

ITA 1948/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1948/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 R B Diamond House, Opposite Manohar Sarees, Baliram Peth, Jalgaon-425001 Pan : Aaifr9130Q Vs. Pne-C-1, Range-25, Circle-1, Cit, Jalgaon अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanjay T. Tupe Department By : Smt. Indira R. Adakil Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-12-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.06.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac"] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- "Ground No. 1: Ex-Parte Order Bad In Law 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ex Parte Order Passed By Cit(A)/ Nafc Is Bad In Law & Violates Principles Of Natural Justice. This Has Lead To A Denial Of Effective Opportunity For A Hearing. Ground No. 2: Violation Of Section 250(6) 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Cit(A)/ Nafc Failed To Comply With Section 250(6), Requiring Reasoned Findings On Each Ground Of Appeal. Ground No. 3: Non-Response Of Notices Due To Medical Issue 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Hearing Notices Were Not Responded To Due To The Illness Of Ms. Rupal Bagrecha Who Is Taking Care Of Accounting, All Income Tax & Other Statutory Compliances. Her E-Mail Id Rupalbagrecha21@Gmail.Com Is Registered On The Income Tax Portal. She Was Suffering From Severe Symptoms Of Epilepsy & Undergoing Medical Investigation From February 2025 Onwards, Preventing Timely Communication Of Notices To The Tax Consultant, Constituting Reasonable & Sufficient Cause For Non-Response.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay T. TupeFor Respondent: Smt. Indira R. Adakil

Section 250(6)Section 69A

jura subveniunt", all the grounds raised in this appeal as reproduced in para 1.1 supra are dismissed.” 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee could not make proper and complete compliance

Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune vs. Nitin Dwarkadas Nyati, Pune

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

ITA 1426/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Acit, Central Circle 2(3), Nitin Dwarkadas Nyati Pune Sr. No.103/129, Nyati Unitree, Vs. Yerwada, Nagar Road, Pune – 411006 Pan: Aabpn2601F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Krishna V Gujarathi Department By : Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore Date Of Hearing : 15-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-12-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Krishna V GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

earned by the assessee during the year under consideration. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1) The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to law and to the facts and circumstances

Madhur Balasaheb Patil, Pune vs. ITO Ward 8(3), Pune

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

ITA 1010/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Divyesh TripathiFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

NFAC dismissed both the appeals for non-prosecution. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds in assessment year 2013-14: 1. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case

Madhur Balasaheb Patil, Pune vs. ITO Ward8(3), Pune

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

ITA 1009/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Divyesh TripathiFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Deepalaxmi Nagari Patsanstha Maryadit, Sangamnagar vs. ITO Ward 2, Aurangabad

ITA 2323/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(1)(a)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)

claim of deduction u/s 80P(1)(a)(i). 7. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The ld CIT-A (NFAC) erred in denying claim for deduction