← 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

Techno Residency Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5742/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi & Ms. Vinita NaraFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 249Section 271(1)(b)Section 69ASection 80P

declined to condone the delay of 150 days in filing the appeal. 5. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced at Paragraph 2 above. 6. We have heard both the sides, considered the rival submissions and have perused the material

The Bombay St. Xaviers, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 2(4), Mumbai

ITA 3643/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti B. PatelFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)

relief and dismissed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide Order, dated 16/12/2023. 7. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal inter-alia raising the following grounds of appeal. “I. CONDONATION OF DELAY: 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... Circular No.16/2022 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). The aforesaid application was rejected vide Order, dated 06/02/2025, and thereafter, the present appeal before the Tribunal was instituted on 25/02/2025 after delay of 434 days. 9. On perusal of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition

The Bombay St. Xaviers Society, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 2(4), Mumbai

ITA 1266/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti B. PatelFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)

relief and dismissed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide Order, dated 16/12/2023. 7. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal inter-alia raising the following grounds of appeal. “I. CONDONATION OF DELAY: 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... Circular No.16/2022 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). The aforesaid application was rejected vide Order, dated 06/02/2025, and thereafter, the present appeal before the Tribunal was instituted on 25/02/2025 after delay of 434 days. 9. On perusal of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition

Blue Breeze Trading LLP, Dlehi vs. DCIT Central Circle -27, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed in above terms for statistical purposes

ITA 5056/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 69

appeal was therefore, liable to be dismissed. 3 Blue Breeze Trading LLP, Delhi 4. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal raising following grounds: 1. “That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-31, New Delhi bas grossly erred both

Haldiram Snacks Private Limited, Haryana vs. PCIT (Central), Delhi-3, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3371/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Haldiram Snacks Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. Cit (Central), Village- Kherki Daula, Delhi Delhi-3, Room No. Jaipur Highway Basai Road, 325, 3Rd Floor, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001. Jhandewalan Extn. Pan-Aaach0061R New Delhi-110055 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv., Shri Deepanshu Kaushik, Adv & Ms. Ragani Handa, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Sita Srivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2025

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 14ASection 153CSection 153DSection 263

fresh inquiries and verification with respect to the purchases claimed by the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed

Tarun Kumar Sahay(HUF), Delhi vs. PCIT(Central)-3, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3370/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Tarun Kumar Sahay (Huf) Vs Pr. Cit (Central), 171, First Floor, Cycle Market, Delhi-3 Jhandewalan Extn., Delhi-110055. Pan-Aacht1105P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Adv. & Shri Shivam Yadav, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Sita Srivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12 .12.2025

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 148Section 153CSection 153DSection 263

raised in the reasons recorded for 148 proceedings and passed the order afresh. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the notice issued under Section 263 of the Income

Alka Agarwal, Delhi vs. PCIT(Central)-3, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3369/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2015-16] Alka Agarwal Vs Pr. Cit (Central), 56, Sfs Flats, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-3 Phase-Iv, Delhi-110052. Pan-Aajpa1281C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Adv. & Shri Shivam Yadav, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Sita Srivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2025

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 153CSection 153DSection 263Section 69Section 69A

before issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the said revision order of ld. PCIT, assessee preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the notice issued under Section 263 of the Income

Shabnam Bharatinder Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-32, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3142/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

vide order dated 17.03.2025, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- A. “Because the impugned order has erred on facts and circumstances of the case and prevailing

Shabnam Bharatinder Singh, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-32, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3141/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

vide order dated 17.03.2025, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- A. “Because the impugned order has erred on facts and circumstances of the case and prevailing

Surender Singh Sangwan, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-4, Sonipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1639/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Surender Singh Sangwan Vs Ito C/O-Kapil Goel, Advocate Ward-4, Aayakar F-26/124, Sector-7 Bhawan, Sonepat, Rohini, Delhi-110085 Haryana Pan-Bqsps5616M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Kapil Goel Respondent By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Rohtak/10489/2018-19 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee E-Filed His Return Of Income, Declaring Total Income At Inr 7,00,190/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued To The Assessee On 07.07.2017 & Duly Served Upon The Assessee. Thereafter, Notices U/S 142(1) Of The Act Alongwith Questionnaire Were Issued On 25.04.2018. In Response Assessee Has Filed Reply Which Were Considered By The Ao & The Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 27.12.2018 Wherein The Total Income Stood Assessed At Inr 1,12,94,400/- By Making Addition U/S 68 Of The Act Towards Unsecured Loans Of Inr 1,05,00,000/- Received During The Year Under Appeal. Besides Disallowance Of Rs. 94,210/- Out Of Various Expenses Claimed Is Also Made.

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

vide impugned order dated 06.12.2024, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- A) “That Ld. CIT-A vide impugned order passed us 250 dated 06.12.2024 erred in not quashing

DCIT, Noida vs. Ankur Mittal, Greater Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Assessee’s

ITA 1104/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 69ASection 69C

order dated 23-12-2024 partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the tribunal. The assessee also filed the cross objection in this appeal. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has shown purchases amounting

Nirvaza Enterprises Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assist. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-29, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5886/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153CSection 250

dismissed the appeal of the assessee, both on legal as well as on factual aspects, therefore, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the assessment order dated

Nirvaza Enterprises Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assist. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 29, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5879/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153CSection 250

dismissed the appeal of the assessee, both on legal as well as on factual aspects, therefore, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the assessment order dated

Income Tax Officer, Ward 46(1), New Delhi vs. Mam Raj Chunni Lal Exim, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3573/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Vs Mam Raj Chunni Lal Exim Ward- 46 (1) Shop No. 5183, Ground New Delhi Floor, Lahori Gate, Naya Bazar, Delhi -110006 Pan No.Aaxfm0533B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 151Section 151A

vide its order dated 11-07-2024 partly allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC the revenue preferred the appeal before the tribunal. The assessee also filed the cross objection in this appeal. The Ld. NFAC has observed in his order as under: “5.8 In regard

Ajit Batra, Delhi vs. ITO, Civic Center

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3099/DEL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2017-18] Ajit Batra, Vs. Ito Shop No.9 Bhagwan Nagar, Civic Center New Delhi South Delhi- 110014 Pan No.Ahlpb5923H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Naman Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2025

Section 68

Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant are hereby allowed.” 9. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The ld. DR submitted that though the assessee belongs to the exempted category of entities who can accept SBN during demonetisation period

ACIT, Circle-2, Noida vs. Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Noida

In the result, the assessing officer is directed to allow both the disallowances

ITA 6732/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shribrajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6540/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 (Physical Hearing) Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Circle-2, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, A-Block, Sector-24, Pan No.Aaaln0639A Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6541/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit,Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6732/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Acit, बनाम Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By Shri Ram Avtar Sharma, Ca & Shri Bhupesh Agarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On 12.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh:

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 34Section 80ASection 80I

PCIT can revise the order of First Appellate Authority. Grievance if any, against such order could be redressed only on filing further appeal before the Tribunal. The recourse of law adopted by Assessing Officer at the behest of PCIT is against the scheme of statutory provisions. To support his submission

Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Noida

In the result, the assessing officer is directed to allow both the disallowances

ITA 6541/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shribrajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6540/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 (Physical Hearing) Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Circle-2, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, A-Block, Sector-24, Pan No.Aaaln0639A Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6541/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit,Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6732/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Acit, बनाम Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By Shri Ram Avtar Sharma, Ca & Shri Bhupesh Agarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On 12.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh:

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 34Section 80ASection 80I

PCIT can revise the order of First Appellate Authority. Grievance if any, against such order could be redressed only on filing further appeal before the Tribunal. The recourse of law adopted by Assessing Officer at the behest of PCIT is against the scheme of statutory provisions. To support his submission

Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Noida

In the result, the assessing officer is directed to allow both the disallowances

ITA 6540/DEL/2018[20101-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shribrajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6540/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 (Physical Hearing) Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Circle-2, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, A-Block, Sector-24, Pan No.Aaaln0639A Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6541/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit,Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6732/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Acit, बनाम Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By Shri Ram Avtar Sharma, Ca & Shri Bhupesh Agarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On 12.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh:

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 34Section 80ASection 80I

PCIT can revise the order of First Appellate Authority. Grievance if any, against such order could be redressed only on filing further appeal before the Tribunal. The recourse of law adopted by Assessing Officer at the behest of PCIT is against the scheme of statutory provisions. To support his submission

Balwinder Singh, Moga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Moga

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 650/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, A. R
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

unexplained and unsubstantiated. Appellant gets part relief. All the grounds raised in this appeal are partly allowed.” 5. Now, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal. In course of hearing, before the Tribunal, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted

Green Land Society ( N.G.O), Dhubri vs. Ward-2(3) Xempt, Guwahati

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

ITA 276/GTY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2018-19 dated 30.05.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as on the points ... appeal was dismissed on account of non-prosecution. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR submitted that due to lack of communication between