“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

Shankar Twine Products Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1605/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Praskash Dubey, Sr. DR

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

sustained the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issue of notice on a number of occasions. Therefore, we deem it proper

Quality Traders, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 63(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2815/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaasstt. Year 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rabin Rawal, Add. CIT(DR)

Section 40

addition made by the Assessing Officer is sustained.” 7. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds :- 1. “ That Ld. CIT (A) erred on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law in upholding

Amarjeet Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 52(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6965/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 254Section 57

filed an appeal before CIT (A) who dismissed the appeal and confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh. The Assessing Officer

Geeta Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 48(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8559/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Devesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69C

said amount may be treated as the unexplained margin money.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal:- a. That on facts and circumstances of the case

Universal Distributors Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-27(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6505/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Aditi Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 115J

this ground of appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal:- 5 ITA-6505//Del/2018 1. (a) That the learned CIT(A)has erred in sustaining the disallowance

Lord Krishna Rice Mills, Karnal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Karnal

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

ITA 9009/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Lord Krishna Rice Mills, Vs Ito, C/O S.B. Gupta, Advocate, Ward-2, 3/93, Mall Road, Karnal. Karnal, Haryana. Pan : Aabfl5926H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mrs. Shivani Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.03.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27Th September, 2019 Of The Cit(A), Karnal, Relating To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Derives Income From Manufacturing & Trading Of Rice By Husking Of Paddy & Sales Thereof. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 25Th September, 2013 Declaring An Income Of Rs.3,41,830/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 15Th February, 2016 Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.7,65,330/- Wherein He Made Certain Additions. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Has Claimed Additional Depreciation On Purchase Of Machinery Of Rs.1,17,14,501/-. The Claim Of The Assessee For Additional Depreciation Was Rejected By The Ao Keeping In View Of The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of M/S Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. Cit Reported In 284 Itr 323, Since The Said Additional Depreciation Was Not Claimed By The Assessee Either In The Original Return Or Through The Revised Return.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 32(1)

other additions, the assessee challenged the order of the AO in denying the claim of additional depreciation which is the subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal. However, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the claim of additional depreciation raised before him by observing as under:- “I have examined the facts ... case. Hence, I confirm the disallowance made in this regard.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- 2 “1. That the order of the Learned CIT(A), Karnal is against law and facts

Space Chem Engineers Private Limited, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-2(3), Ghaziabad

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1791/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaasstt. Year 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 68

these grounds of appeal are not maintainable, accordingly, dismissed.” 11. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds :- 1. “Because, the order of learned lower authority is bad in law & against the facts and circumstance

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Satish Kumar Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, the Departmental appeal is not maintainable as the appeal is filed against the Board instructions referred to above and therefore, the appeal of the Department is liable to be dismissed

ITA 2934/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 268A

been directed that the Department 2 ITA.No.2934/Del./2017 Sh. Satish Kumar Gupta, New Delhi. shall not file appeal before the Tribunal in case where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limit of Rs.20 lakhs. It is also directed that this instruction will apply retrospectively to pending appeals

Sunil Tigga, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 2(3), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 9230/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Sunil Tigga, Vs Ito, 146, B-Block, Nandgram, Ward-2(3), Ghaziabad (Up). Ghaziabad (Up). Pan: Akapt2884K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Neeraj Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Renu Mukherjee, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex Parte Order Dated 30Th October, 2019 Of The Cit(A), Ghaziabad, 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 Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Due To Delay In Filing The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Renu Mukherjee, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

passed by her, dismissed the appeal as nonest being defective. 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 due to non-receipt of notice from the AO, the assessee could not respond

Kedar Nath Sawhney, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-34(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 5191/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

ground of appeal taken by the Appellant is dismissed.” 7. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5 8. The ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.88

Narender Jindal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 63(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 2385/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Girish K. Shukla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Renu Mukherjee, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings. However, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed both the issues. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the record.. It is an admitted fact that

ITO, Ward- 1, New Delhi vs. Jai Kishan Contractor, Charkhi Dadri

In the result, appeal filed by the department is dismissed

ITA 4206/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Ostwal, CA

Section 268A

brought to our attention that CBDT vide Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08th August 2019 has decided that the revenue would not prefer any appeal before the Tribunal if the tax effect is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, he pleaded that the appeal of the revenue be decided

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Daffodil Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Agra

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

ITA 2927/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13 Daffodil Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 303, 3Rd Floor, Global Foyer, Circle-7(1), Golf Course Road, Sector-43, Cr Building, Ip Estate, Gurgaon. New Delhi. Pan: Aaccd4642C Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs. Daffodil Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., 303, 3Rd Floor, Global Foyer, Circle-7(1), Cr Building, Ip Estate, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, New Delhi Gurgaon. Pan: Aaccd4642C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 9Th

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR

Section 68

Officer is directed to modify the order of assessment accordingly.” 8. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- “1. Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs.3 ... record, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is sustained.” 18. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 19. Grounds of appeal No.1 and 2 of the assessee relate to the order of the CIT(A) in sustaining the addition

M/S. Daffodil Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2422/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR

Section 68

M/S. Classic Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1337/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, DR

Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

additions made by the AO for both the assessment years. 6. Aggrieved with such orders of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- “1. That the impugned order is bad in law, in nature as assessment has not been framed

Manoj Kumar, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3546/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 143(3)

allowed part relief to the assessee. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. 3. Before us, the parties appeared through Video Conferencing facility. 4. At the outset, the learned Counsel of the assessee submitted

ACIT, Central Circle-3, New Delhi vs. Bhushan Steel Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals, both of the Revenue and the assessee, are dismissed

ITA 1601/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

For Respondent: 1. The

Section 144Section 147Section 149Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 271

however, he allowed the legal grounds in favour of the assessee quashing the assessment. Aggrieved, both the Revenue and the assessee are in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. 4. Before us, both the parties appeared through Video Conferencing facility. 5 ITA Nos.1600/Del./2018; 1491/Del./2018