“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

Anju Manish Gangar, Navi Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 28(1), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 6676/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 144Section 250Section 253

days in filing the present appeal and in this regard assessee has filed an application for seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal, which is reproduced herein below: (i) The Assessee ("the Applicant" herein) has filed the captioned appeal under section 253 of the Income

Anju Manish Gangar, Navi Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 22(3), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 6675/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 144Section 250Section 253

Classic Share & Stock Broking Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 4962/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Girish Agrawal, ()

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

additions, but Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the disallowance of expenses to the extent of Rs. 40,32,180/-. Further assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal against the Ld. CIT(A) order which had been dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 7 ITA No.4962/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2012-13 Classic share

Chirag Chandrakant Mehta, Mumbai vs. Principal CIT-27, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4397/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Chirag Chandrakant Mehta Vs Principal Commissioner Of C/O Ca Himanshu Gandhi Income Tax-27, Mumbai 16Th Floor, D Wing, Trade World Building, Kamala Mills Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013 Pan: (Aabpm5091L) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 263Section 68

Mehta A.Y. 2015-16 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 399 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal for which an affidavit for condonation of the said delay is placed on record, duly notarized. The contents of this affidavit filed ... order. It is now, after a lapse of 399 days that assessee has 8 Chirag Chandrakant Mehta A.Y. 2015-16 come up in appeal before the Tribunal against the revisionary order passed under section 263 with the prayer for condonation of delay. Assessee was well within his rights to file

Priyanka Lalitkumar Raizada, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 42(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4379/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalpriyanka Lalitkumar Raizada Vs Dcit Circle 42(3)(1), C/O Ca Himanshu Gandhi, 16Th Mumbai Floor, D Wing, Trade World Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Building, Kamala Mills Compound, Kurla Complex, Bandra Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 East, Mumbai 400051 Pan: (Aekpr3350J) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. Dr (Virtually Present) Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1058479077(1) Dated 05.12.2023 Passed Against Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 26.12.2016 For Ay 2014-15. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Ld. Cti (A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs. 21,50,540/-Being Sale Proceeds Of Inherited Jewellery As Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

before the date of hearing.” 3. There is a delay of 490 days noted by the registry in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal, for which petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit by the assessee is placed on record. From the perusal of the same ... appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the decision of ld. AO to upheld the addition so made. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the above stated facts. He pointed out that the observations of the authorities below, more particularly

M/S Sharpline Network Private Limited, Jhandewalan, New Delhi vs. The Income Tax Officer 23(1), New Delhi, C.R. Building

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5140/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Sharpline Network Pvt. Vs Ito- 23(1) Ltd. C.R. Building 38, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi- 02 Jhandewalan, New Delhi- 55 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcs0526B

For Appellant: Shri Tarn Chanana, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, SR. DR

Section 10(1)Section 115BSection 144Section 234BSection 250Section 68

Sharpline Network Pvt Ltd VS. ITO Ward 23(1) 27.06.2025. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee did not receive any of the notices issued by the Ld. AO as well

Anuj Singhal, Karnal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karnal

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5134/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Anuj Singhal Vs Ito Ward-1 Prop. Rajpal Bharta Kumar & Income Tax Department, Runicha International, Sector-12, Village: Madanpur, Karnal G.T. Road, Karnal Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acips2038J Assessee By : None Department/Revenue By : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.12.2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, SR. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

outstanding demand that the assessee came to know about the dismissal of his appeal and, therefore, engaged another CA for filing the appeal before the Tribunal which was however, delay by 85 days. In view of these facts and circumstances, the assessee has requested for condonation of delay being ... Vide order dated 25.03.2025, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed ex- parte. However, aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have perused the grounds of appeal and material available on record. After hearing the Ld. DR, as none appeared on behalf of the assessee

Yashpal Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5132/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Yashpal Tyagi Vs Ito House No. 183, Makanpur, Cgo Complex-Ii Ghaziabad-201001 Purani Hapur Chungi Uttar Pradesh Ghaziabad-201001 Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abmpt0290Q

For Appellant: Shri Ashutosh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, SR. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

dismissed the assessee’s appeal without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. Ld. AR has requested for restoring the matter