“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

Jagroshni (L/H of Late Anant Ram), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 54(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 6087/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2014-15 Jagroshni (L/H Of Late Anant Ram), Vs. Ito, T-77, Sarai Kale Khan, Ward 54(5), East Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Anwpr8178H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2021 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(viii)

order passed by him, sustained the addition made by the AO. 7. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. I have heard the ld. DR and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that the assessee did not appear before

Registan Exim Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 21(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 5877/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Registan Exim Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 835/836, Kucha Pati Ram, Ward 21(2), Sita Ram Bazar, New Delhi. Chandni Chowk, New Delhi. Pan: Aaecr5891F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2021 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

parte order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. I have heard the ld. DR and perused the record. The order of the CIT(A) shows that he had issued two notices

Shyam Sunder Saini, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 44(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 5200/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2013-14 Shyam Sunder Saini, Vs. Ito, H-960, Palam Village, Ward 44(5), Ramphal Chow, Ext. Part I, New Delhi. Pochanpur Road, Harijan Basti, New Delhi. Pan: Ajgps8417G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Kumar Vats, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Kumar Vats, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)

dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. I have heard the rival arguments made both the sides and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that due to non-appearance before

Vis-A-Vis India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 26(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 1644/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2015-16 Vis-À-Vis India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 90, New Mangla Puri, Ward 26(4), Mg Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacv8740P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Naresh Samkaria, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ramesh Kumar Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Samkaria, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Kumar

Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 69B

appeal, the ld.CIT(A) gave part relief to the assessee. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer was not justified in adding

Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. JCIT, Uttar Pradesh

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

ITA 1104/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 145A

stock for the next year should be amended accordingly. 8. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. We have heard the rival arguments made both the sides and perused the record. We find, the AO, applying the provisions of section 145A

Rajesh Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 2(2), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 6972/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 123(1)Section 147Section 148

grounds challenging the validity of the re-assessment proceedings. 3. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 6 ITA.No.6972/Del./2019 Sh. Rajesh Tyagi, Ghaziabad. 1. Because the order of learned lower authority

Neo Vehicleaids Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 18(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2100/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2014-15] M/S Neo Vehicleaids Private Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-18(1), D-48, Sector-63, Nodia- C.R. Building, 201301, U.P. New Delhi-110092 Pan-Aadcn7327H Assessee Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

Bhattachargee and Another, 118 ITR 461(SC) 7. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. I have heard the ld. DR and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that due to non-appearance of the assessee

Ultimate Flexipack Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 27, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 427/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh CIT-D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 153Section 80

I.T.A. No.427 & 428/Del/2018 in Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 in favour of the assessee for which the Department has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Since, this issue has already been decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case that Excise Duty refund was on account

DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi vs. Hero Motocrop Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3291/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 254Section 40Section 40A

Rs.3355,12,31,399/- (before deducting 2007-08 adjustment Rs.76.62 crores) to the returning amount. Against the final assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal which was disposed off vide order dated 13/6/2014 wherein the majority of the aforesaid additions/disallowances to be extent of Rs. 3279.25 crores were ... been paid before the due date of filing the return of income and allow the same in the first round of appeal before the Tribunal. Thus, the Assessing Officer was not right in disallowing the deduction under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for failure to deduct and deposit

Associated Business Group, Noida vs. ITO, Ward-31(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 5382/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Assessing Officer, and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the authorities below have failed to appreciate the facts in right perspective

Dhani Ram, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-38(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2817/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

passed the ex-parte order. 2.3. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for passing a speaking order, after giving due opportunity of being heard ... which was offered for taxation by the assessee. 3. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred

Naresh Kumar Verma, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Meerut

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

ITA 5751/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2010-11 Naresh Kumar Verma, Vs. Ito, C/O Vinod Kumar Goel, Ward-2(1), 282, Boundry Road, Meerut. Civil Lines, Meerut. Pan: Acjpv7188D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kumar Goel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.10.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.DR

Section 139(9)(f)Section 147Section 148

result, the appeal is partly allowed.” 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- “1. That on going through the assessment order it appears that notice u/s 148 was issued

Neelam Texprints Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, CPC- TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 3836/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Pundir, Sr. DR

Section 200ASection 234E

with law no interference is required as this stage.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on merits of case was not justified

Neelam Texprints Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, CPC- TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 3835/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Pundir, Sr. DR

Section 200ASection 234E

M/S. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Uttar Pradesh

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

ITA 927/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2013-14 Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Vs. Dcit, C/O S.P. Jain & Associates, Circle Saharanpur, 303-305, Bhanot House, Uttar Pradesh. 17, Yusaf Sarai Commercial Complex, New Delhi. Pan: Aaaak0211G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil Kumar Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.10.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 6Th October, 2016 Of The Cit(A), Muzaffarnagar, Relating To Assessment Year 2013- 14. 2. The Only Effective Ground Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, Sr. DR

addition is hereby deleted. Ground of appeal is partly allowed.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have heard both the parties and considered the relevant material placed on record. We find, identical issue had come up before

Sh. Rahul Seth, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4503/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Ita Nos.4502 & 4503/Del/2014 (Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08) Rahul Seth Vs. Acit 14, Chinar Drive, Central Circle – 25, Dlf Chhatarpur Farms New Delhi New Delhi – 110074 Pan : Aasps 9459 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.10.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

vide order dated 27.05.2014 in 3 Appeal No.317/2013-14 granted partial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal vide order dated 1.10.2015 (ITA No 4502 & 4503/Del/2014) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non prosecution

Sh. Rahul Seth, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4502/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Ms. Uma Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3818/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Uma Gupta, Vs. Acit, Aerens Bimaldeep Complex, Central Circle-9, Behind Pocket-3, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aahpg0455E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajeshwar Painuly, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex Parte Order Dated 23Rd March, 2016 Of The Cit(A)-25, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That A Search & Seizure & Survey Operation U/S 132/133A Of The It Act, 1961 Were Conducted On 17Th August, 2011 In The Case Of The Assessee Along With Other Cases Of The Group At Various Residential & Business Premises. In Response To Notice U/S 153A, The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income Declaring Income From House Property At Rs.1,26,000/-, Income From Bank Interest At Rs.241/- & Income From Dividend At Rs.53,050/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Observed That The Assessee Has Declared Capital Loss On Sale Of Property At Rs.32,536/- Giving Note That The Indexed Cost Of The Property Is More By An Amount Of Rs.32,536/- Than The Sale Consideration Of The Land. However, In The Balance Sheet, The Assessee Has Credited A Sum Of Rs.80,032.67 As Profit On Sale Of Land. In Absence Of Any Proper Explanation From The Side Of The Assessee, The Ao Treated The Long-Term Capital Gain At Rs.80,032.67 & Determined The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.1,71,997/-, After Allowing Deduction U/S 80C At Rs.34,276/- & Allowing The Exemption U/S 10(34) Of The Act On Dividend Income At Rs.53,050/-.

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 10(34)Section 132Section 153ASection 234BSection 48Section 80C

hereby confirmed. Ground No. 2 of the Appeal is rejected.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- “1. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order

Nitin Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 34(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 9223/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2016-17 Nitin Gupta, Vs. Ito, C-1/23, Ashok Vihar Phase-Ii, Ward-34(4), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aeapg4313C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.10.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 5Section 95

Accordingly, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is confirmed.” 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- 5 “1. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed

Vidya Vihar Shiksha Samiti, New Delhi vs. ACIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 7642/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2015-16 Vidya Vihar Shiksha Samiti, Vs. Acit, Cpc, 1/11864, Panchsheel Garden, Bangalore. Naveen Shahdara, New Delhi. Pan: Aaatv1225A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.10.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 139Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 164(2)

slab rate. Ground of appeal no. 1 is dismissed.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, filed a copy of the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case