← 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

Badley Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(5), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 9433/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2010-11 Badley Singh, Vs Ito, 5/11, Gda Market, Ward-1(5), Sector-5, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad. Pan : Aygps9473B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex Parte Order Dated 30Th September, 2019 Of The Cit(A), Ghaziabad, Relating To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Service Of Notice, Therefore, This Appeal Is Being Decided On The Basis Of The Material Available On Record & After Hearing The Ld. Dr. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That On The Basis Of Air Information That The Assessee Has Deposited Cash Of Rs.16,18,000/- In His Savings Bank Account, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act After Recording The Reasons. Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 30Th March, 2007 Was Issued To The Assessee. Subsequently, The Ao Issued Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act. Since There Was Non- Compliance From The Side Of The Assessee, The Ao, Invoking The Provisions Of Section 144 Of The Act, Made Addition Of Rs.16,18,000/- To The Total Income Of The Assessee U/S 69 Of The Act. In Appeal, The Ld. Cit(A) Upheld The Validity Of The Reassessment Proceedings As Well As The Addition On Merits.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

reassessment proceedings as well as the addition on merits. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- “1. That the service of the notice issued u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961 suffers from severe

Sachin Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 42(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 9382/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2013-14 Sachin Kumar, Vs Ito, 13-A, Vipin Garden, Ward-42(5), Fakkad Baba Road, New Delhi. Near Gauri Shankar Mandir, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. Pan : Aqrpk7054P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex Parte Order Dated 26Th March, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-14, New Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 30Th September, 2013, Declaring The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.3,79,980/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Served On The Assessee. However, None Appeared On The Appointed Date. Thereafter, Notice U/S 142(1) Was Also Issued To The Assessee On Different Dates, But, Again There Was No Compliance. Subsequently, The Ar Of The Assessee Appeared Before The Ao & Filed A Few Details & Sought Adjournment. Thereafter, Again, There Was Continuous Non-Compliance & The Assessee Was Seeking Adjournment Under Some Pretext Or The Other. Finally, The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 144 Of The Act Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.31,96,480/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.3,79,980/-. Since Nobody Appeared Before The Cit(A) Despite Five Opportunities Granted, The Ld.Cit(A), In The Ex Parte Order Passed By Him, Confirmed The Addition Made By The Ao.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69C

passed by him, confirmed the addition made by the AO. 3. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. I have heard the ld. DR and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that due to non-submission of full

Smt. Amarjeet Kaur, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2780/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13 Amarjeet Kaur, Vs Acit, C/O L.N. Nangalya & Co., Circle-46(1), 101 & 105, S-524, Neelkanth New Delhi. Complex, Shakarpur, Delhi. Pan: Aaipk4730F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Saurabh Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ashok Gautam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2Nd February, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-16, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Her Return Of Income On 31St July, 2012 Declaring Total Income At Rs.7,49,01,810/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noted That The Assessee Has Claimed Capital Gain On Sale Of Her Undivided 12.5% Share Of 921.06 Sq. Yard. Of Land In Property No.11B, Jungpura, New Delhi – 110014 Which Was Sold For Rs.74 Lacs To Her Son Mr. Aniljit Singh, Whereas Mr. Aniljit Singh Has Purchased The Undivided 25% Share Of The Above Said Property From His Uncle At Rs.2,40,00,000/-. According To The Assessing Officer, Since Both Are Part Of The Same Property, The Rate At Which It Is Sold By The Assessee Is Under Valued. Rejecting The Various Explanations Given By The Assessee, The Assessing Officer Made Addition Of Rs.45.50Lakhs Being The Difference Between The Value Of 12.5% Share At Rs.1.20 Crore & The Sale Value Of Rs.74.50 Lakhs.

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)

with his order with regard to addition of Rs.1.3 crore.” 7. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- “On Assumption of Jurisdiction 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case