“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

Madhusudan Reddy Pasham, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 428/HYD/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Sri A.P. Babu, Sr. A.R

Section 132(4)Section 37(1)

sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 9. Aggrieved by the Order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. Ground nos.1 to 6 are general in nature and do not require any specific adjudication. 11. The first issue that came ... brokers and advance payment for purchase of land. 14. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 15. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A., submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining

Madhusudan Reddy Pasham, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 427/HYD/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Sri A.P. Babu, Sr. A.R

Section 132(4)Section 37(1)

Uppalaiah Ravula, Adilabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1299/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 133ASection 147Section 148

impounded material to the income of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri A.V. Raghuram, submitted that, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining additions made by the A.O. towards

Uppalaiah Ravula, Adilabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1298/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 133ASection 147Section 148

Gayatri Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, these three appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1113/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1111, 1112 & 1113/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2018-2019, 2020-2021 & 2021-2022 Gayatri Projects Limited, The Dcit, Hyderabad – 500 082. Vs. Circle-2(1), Telangana. Hyderabad – 500 084. Pan Aaacg8040K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri S Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri S Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 253(3)

respectively. 2 ITA.Nos.1111, 1112 and 1113/Hyd./2025 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 576 days in filing these three appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed the application for condonation of delay which is also supported by the affidavit of Resolution Professional of the assessee ... ITA.No.1110/Hyd./2025, this Tribunal in assessee’s own case has considered the delay of 576 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal vide Order dated 24.09.2025 in Para-4 as under : “4. We have heard both the parties and perused the petition filed by the assessee seeking

Gayatri Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, these three appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1112/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri S Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 253(3)

Gayatri Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, these three appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1111/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri S Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 253(3)

Classic Bio-Tech Exports Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO., Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1362/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 69C

Section 69C of the Act, as unexplained expenditure. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri Avinash Maliya, and Shri Joseph Varghese, Advocates, referring to the paper book filed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Thangamani Perumalgounder, Namakkal

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2155/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2155/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Babitha, JCIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 269SSection 271D

material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC), we condone

ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai vs. Stn Properties Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1648/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1647 & 1648/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 & & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Stn Properties Private Limited, 6/24, Eb Colony, 1St Main Road, Income Tax, Central Circle 3(2), Adambakkam, Tambaram, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan:Aakcs6317F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.G. Raghunath, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Both Dated 31.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)–20, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2014-15. 2. Since Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Of The Revenue Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri K.G. Raghunath, Advocate

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

Grounds relating to the issue are Allowed. 7. Aggrieved by the above order of the ld. CIT(A), the Appellant- Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal for AY 2012-13. 7 I.T.A. No.1647 & 1648/Chny/24 8. The ld. DR Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT submits that

ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai vs. Stn Properties Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1647/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

Grounds relating to the issue are Allowed. 7. Aggrieved by the above order of the Id. CIT(A), the Appellant- Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal for AY 2012-13. 8. The Id. DR Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT submits that the Id. CIT(A) erroneously deleted the additions

Umar Daraj, Meerut vs. ITO Ward-1(2)(4), Meerut

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

ITA 3095/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Umar Daraj, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2)(4), 153/1, Hapur Road, Meerut. Umar Nagar, Meerut – 250 001 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Ainpd8766H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Citdr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Order : 10.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman:

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CITDR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 40A

appeal and assessee is not able to get any benefit in filing the same delayed. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee filed its original return of income on 20.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.7

Sarvajanik Education and Welfare Society, Guguldih vs. Commissioner of Imcome Tax (Exemption), Patna

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

ITA 44/PAT/2025[Na-N]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(E) was not just and proper on the facts of the case ... also cancelled. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT (Exemption), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. It was submitted by Ld. AR that the assessee had sought for regular approval but Form

Bindeshwari Lal Mahto, Katihar vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 349/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2015-16 dated 30.05.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the leaned ... 349/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Bindeshwari Lal Mahto. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the case was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR. 6. We have

Society for Advancement of Village Economy, Gaya vs. ACIT(Exemption) Circle, Patna

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

ITA 14/PAT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 250(6)Section 28

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2014-15 dated 24.11.2017. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. FOR THAT Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts in confirming action ... Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 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. DR submitted that the assessee was granted approval u/s 12AA

Rajwant Kaur, Pehowa, Kurukshetra vs. ITO, Ward 3, Kurukshetra

In the result, the delay is condoned and the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1023/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Tribunal With A Delay Of 408 Days. Along With The Appeal, The Assessee Has Filed An Application Seeking Condonation Of Delay. In The Condonation Petition, The Assessee Has Explained That She Is A Farmer By Occupation, Residing In A Rural Area & Has Very Limited Knowledge Of Income Tax Laws As Well As Online Procedures. It Has Been Stated That She Was Not Aware Of The Requirement To Check Or Respond Through The Income-Tax E-Filing Portal & Came To Know About The Demand Only Upon Receipt Of A Physical Notice From The Department. Thereafter, She Immediately Sought Professional Assistance. The Delay, According To The Assessee, Is Wholly Unintentional & Caused Due To Circumstances Beyond Her Control.

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sachdeva, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 148

dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 408 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay. In the condonation

Parvatbhai Baria, Gujarat vs. ITO, Ward 1, Godhra, Gujarat

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

ITA 1583/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1583/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2018-2019 Parvatbhai Baria, The Income Tax Officer, बनामVs. 818, Vavdi Gam, Ward-1, Dahod Highway, Godhra. Vavdi Buzurg, Panchmahal-389001. Gujarat.

For Appellant: Shri Abbas Gulamhusianwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saresh Kartik Laxmanbhai, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250(6)Section 270ASection 45

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. We observe that there is a delay of 198 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee, in the application for condonation of delay, has stated that he is a resident of a village not conversant with modern means

Motiwala Auto Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad vs. ITO, Ward1(1), Auranabad, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 486/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. RathiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Haladkar

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 251(1)(a)

purposes, the appeal is allowed. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is disposed off.” 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : "1. THE CHALLENGE TO REASSESSMENT 1.1 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

Dhiraj Giridhar Maske, Latur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Latur

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

ITA 2473/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 206CSection 270ASection 271A

condone the delay and dismissed the appeals. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC has not issued any notice of hearing

Dhiraj Giridhar Maske, Latur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Latur

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

ITA 2472/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 206CSection 270ASection 271A