“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

Veeresh Bhati, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. ITO Ward - 2(5), Noida

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

ITA 1707/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

parte order, sustained the addition made by the A.O. 4. Aggrieved with such Order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I have heard the Ld. D.R. and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that A.O. in the instant case made

Harish Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT Circle-1, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 8489/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Kumar Kataria, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

assessee treating the same as non-est and defective. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders

V.B. Builders, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2059/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2013-14 V.B. Builders, Vs Dcit, C/O Praveen Aggarwal & Co.,Cas, Circle-2, 23, Bhai Veer Singh Marg, Ghaziabad. Gole Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aagfv0254P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kvsr Krishnan, Ca Revenue By : Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.07.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31St January, 2018 Of The Cit(A), Ghaziabad, Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.6,63,960/- By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act, 1961 Which Has Been Upheld By The Cit(A) Is The Only Issue Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29Th October, 2013 Declaring Total Income At Rs.1,78,80,820/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The It Act, 1961 On 30Th December, 2015 Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2,00,28,920/- Wherein He Made An Addition Of Rs.21,48,102/- By Estimating The Profit At 14.5% As Agreed By The Assessee For Such Estimation. Subsequently, The Ao Initiated Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. Rejecting The Various Explanations Given By The Assessee & Distinguishing The Various Decisions Cited Before Him, The Ao Levied Penalty Of Rs.6,63,763/- Being 100% Of Tax Sought To Be Evaded.

For Appellant: Shri KVSR Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

ld.CIT(A) sustained the penalty levied by the AO. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld. counsel for the assessee, referring to the following decisions, submitted that penalty

Rmg Buildwell (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 1311/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2014-15 Rmg Buildwell (P) Ltd., Vs Ito, G-1354, Lower Ground Floor, Ward-20(3), Cr Park, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaecr0311C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Naresh Chandra Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.07.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Chandra Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. DR

Section 43CSection 50CSection 56

confirmed. These grounds of appeal are ruled against the appellant.” 3. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The ld. counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the CIT(A). He submitted that the difference between circle rate

M/S. C.S. Datamation Research Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3668/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Ms. Piyush Baranwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Thakur, Sr. DR

hereby confirmed and these grounds of appeal stand dismissed.” 4. Aggrieved with such Order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 1. That the CIT (A) has not provided us the reasonable opportunity to produce the ledger accounts

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Gen X Commodities (P) Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3561/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.N. Chary[Assessment Year: 2011-12] Dcit, M/S Gen X Commodities (P) Central Circle-29, Ltd. Room No.318, 3Rd Floor, Fa-45, Shivaji Enclave, Ara Centre, New Delhi-110027 Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi Pan-Aaaca2969B Revenue Assessee

Section 132Section 14ASection 153ASection 2(22)(e)

provisions of section 2(22)(e) will not applicable. 8. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal:- a. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Bhupesh Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 43(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 5530/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2016-17 Bhupesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 380, 1St Floor, Block-B, Ward 43(3), Sector-19, Dwarka, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Ahmpk6335M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Kataria, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2021 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex Parte Order Dated 7Th June, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-15, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Issue Of Notice Through Rpad. Therefore, This Appeal Is Being Decided On The Basis Of Material Available On Record & After Hearing The Ld. Dr 3. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, These All Relate To The Ex Parte Order Of The Cit(A) In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.22,94,977/- Made By The Ao In The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The It Act, 1961. 4. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 30Th December, 2016 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.3,45,440/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny To Verify The Cash In Hand Shown In The Income-Tax Return. Notice U/S 143(2) & A Questionnaire Along With Notice U/S 142(1) Was Issued & Served On The Assessee On Different Dates. From The Various Details Furnished By The Assessee, The Ao Noted That The Assessee Could Not Explain The Huge Difference Of Rs.22,94,977/- In Cash In Hand As Compared To Last Year’S Balance Sheet. Although Due Opportunity Was Granted By The Ao, However, There Was No Satisfactory Compliance From The Side Of The Assessee To His Query. The Ao Noted That The Cash In Hand As On 31.03.2015 Was Rs.17,26,593/- Whereas The Cash Balance As On 31.03.2016 Was Rs.40,21,870/-. Since The Difference Of Rs.22,94,977/- Remained Unexplained, The Ao Made Addition Of The Same To The Total Income Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Kataria, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Aggrieved with such ex parte order of the CIT(A) sustaining the addition made by the AO, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. I have heard the ld. DR and perused the record. I find, the AO, in the instant case, made an addition of Rs.22

Ranjiv Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-28(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 788/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 147Section 148Section 68

appeal taken by the appellant are held to be devoid of any merit and stand dismissed.” 2.1 Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. 3. Both the parties appeared before us through Video Conferencing facility. 4. At the outset, the learned counsel

ACIT (Exemption), Circle-2 (1), New Delhi vs. Subros Educational Society, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7326/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 15Section 70

decisions and decision 3 of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for assessment year 2008-09. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee before us. We have heard the Learned Department Representative

ACIT, Circle- 78(1), New Delhi vs. Unitech Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6612/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 10(2)Section 10(20)Section 133ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 201Section 201(1)

Court in the case of Rajesh Projects India Private Limited Vs CIT(TDS) (2017) 78 taxmann.com 263 (Delhi). Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal, raising the grounds as reproduced above. 3. We have heard learned Departmental Representative, who appeared through Video Conferencing facility and perused the material

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Telecommunication Consultant India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3609/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

disallowance of prior period expenses of Rs. 26,16,106/-. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted both these disallowances. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal, raising the grounds as reproduced above. 3. Before us, the parties appeared through Video Conferencing facility and filed documents electronically. 4. The ground

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sil Investment Ltd., Rajasthan

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3539/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit Vs. M/S. Sil Investment Ltd., Circle – 23(2), (Formerly Known As Sutlej New Delhi – 02 Industries Ltd.) Panchpahar Road, Bhawani Mandi, Jhalawar, Pan No. Aabcs 2899 H Rajasthan - 326502 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. Revenue By Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/07/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80ISection 80M

vide order dated 08.04.2011 in Appeal No.171/10-11 granted substantial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal vide order dated 04.06.2018 in ITA No.3539/Del/2011, dismissed the appeal of Revenue. Thereafter, Revenue moved a Miscellaneous Application

Ram Kumar Dhiamn, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-26(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 1351/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 143(3)

passed by him upheld the order of the AO. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the learned

K D Trend Wear Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-14(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1003/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2012-13 K.D. Trend Wear Limited, Vs Ito, C/O Mahesh Kumar & Co., Ward-14(1), 304, Arunachal Building, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Pan: Aadck1709P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.07.2021 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 68

dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I have heard the ld. DR and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that due to non-appearance by the assessee before

Sawarn Singh, Amritsar vs. ITO, Ward-47(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 8598/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Sawarn Singh, Vs Ito, 891, Gali No.6, Ward-47(3), Har Kishan Nagar Chehherata, New Delhi. Amritsar. Pan:Bmdps1497R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.R. Maurya, Advocate Revenue By : Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.07.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri R.R. Maurya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

parte order, sustained the addition made by the AO. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is very small and due to various reasons the case was not properly

Vinod Kohli, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-38(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7117/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Vinod Kohli, Vs Dcit, A-1/56, Ff, Sec.08, Circle-38(1), Rohini, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Amipk8299D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.07.2021 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex Parte Order Dated 28Th June, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-13, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Issue Of Notice By The Registry. Therefore, This Appeal Is Being Decided On The Basis Of Material Available On Record & After Hearing The Ld. Dr.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. DR

Section 08Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

upheld the various additions made by the AO. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. I have heard the ld. DR and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that the assessee did not appear before

Ram Rati, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward - 3(5), Gurgaon

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

ITA 4424/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Ram Rati, Vs Ito, C-136, Sector 54, Ward-3(5), Suncity, Gurgaon. Gurgaon (Haryana). Pan: Awopr8177M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.07.2021 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 54F

assessee and thereby upholding the action of the AO. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. I have heard the ld. DR and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that despite number of opportunities granted

Meena Sharma, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward - 2(5), Gurgaon

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

ITA 4306/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Meena Sharma, Vs Ito, Q5558, Jalvayu Vihar, Ward-2(5), Sector 30, Gurgaon. Gurgaon (Haryana). Pan: Bpqps1783G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohan Sogani, Ca Revenue By : Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.07.2021 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex Parte Order Dated 19Th February, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-1, Gurgaon, Relating To Assessment Year 2011- 12. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, These All Relate To The Ex Parte Order Of The Cit(A) In Confirming The Various Additions Made By The Ao.

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148

accordingly dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a lady and not well conversant with the intricacies of income

Rai Printographs Pvtltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 21(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2008/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2010-11 Rai Printographs Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito, 206, Hans Bhawan, Ward-21(2), 1 Bsz Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aabcr6077N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.07.2021 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

argument or submission or paper book filed before her. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. I have heard the ld. DR and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that despite four opportunities granted

Premier Udyog Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-20(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 241/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 14A

terms of section 14A of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the disallowance. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. 3. Both the parties appeared before us through Video Conferencing facility and filed documents electronically. 4. The learned Counsel