“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

Mr.Polavarapur Sambasiva Rao, Bhubaneswar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 548/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Basudev Panda, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

above three appeals, ITA Nos.548/CTK/2025 for A.Y.2016-2017 is delayed by 228 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. ITA No.549/CTK/2025 is delayed by 408 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. ITA No.550/CTK/2025 is delayed by 43 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard

Mandala Sriramachandra Murthy, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 606/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

therefore, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts

Maria Rojalu Pothakamuri, Narsaraopeta vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Narsaraopeta

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 587/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A), assessee has raised various grounds challenging the assessment order. After considering the submissions of the assessee, Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal by raising following grounds of

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 69ASection 748

assessee, Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal by raising following grounds of appeal: - 1. The Ld. CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre is not justified in remanding the case back

Kolliparaapparao Cotton Mills Pvt Ltd, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 580/VIZ/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the Ld.CIT(A) and explained the reasons for the delay in filing the return and prayed to condone the delay to advance substantial justice on the ground that the issue involved therein, on merits, is with respect to levy of late filing fee under Section 234E of the Act is now covered in favour of the assessee by various decisions, as per which there is no provision under the Act to levy late filing fee before insertion of Section 200A by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. However, the Ld.A

Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

Ld.Addl./JCIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.Addl./JCIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) is contrary to the facts

Sri Visweswara Swamy Temple, Machilipatnam vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 544/VIZ/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 12A

outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 25 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking ... days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 25 days Page. No 2 LT.A.No.544/VIZ/2025 Sri Visweswara Swamy Temple Sty in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee

Seelamsetty Balaji, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 508/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

sae sei afte, feemaneua te, fexmarmeursy IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (HYBRID HEARING) Sf edie

Indira Rani Mulpuri, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 134/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Tribunal, Which Caused The Delay. She Further Submitted That The Delay Was Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate, Therefore, Pleaded To Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing In The Interest Of Justice.

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

until she received a call from the department. Without any further delay she approached the present counsel who advised her to file an appeal before the Tribunal, which caused the delay. She further submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate, therefore, pleaded to condone the delay and admit ... dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. On being aggrieved with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed

A & B Associates, Thiruvananthapuram vs. The Income Tax Officer, Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 643/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by directing the AO to -

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Sr. D/R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

order after proper enquiry and due compliance with legal requirements. The appeal was thus partly allowed. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. During the appeal proceedings, the main contention of the Ld.AR for the assessee was that none of the notices stated

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 5 Pune, Pune vs. Dipti Narendra Lulla, Pune

ITA 1065/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 143(2)

made by the AO is hereby also deleted. 10. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CTT(A) has erred

Manohar Reddy Cheruku, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1625/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1625/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Manohar Reddy Vs. Dy.Cit Cheruku, Hyderabad Central Circle 1(3) Pan:Aelpc8785R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri C Maheshwar Reddy, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri C Maheshwar Reddy, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Waseem UR Rehman, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 45(1)Section 53A

upheld the addition made by the Ld. AO. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. At the outset, the Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the only issue out of the grounds of the assessee

Anil Kumar Dundoo, Secunderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-10(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1470/HYD/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1470/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Anil Kumar Dundoo Vs. Acit Secunderabad Circle 10(1) Pan:Abppd7600K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate D Prabhakar Reddy राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Advocate D Prabhakar ReddyFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

A.Y.2017-18. 2. At the outset, it is seen that there is a delay of 16 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition along with a copy of affidavit explaining the reasons which led to the delay in filing the appeal. Page ... Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was passed on 06.06.2025. Accordingly, the limitation for filing the appeal before this Tribunal expired on 31.08.2025. It was submitted that the assessee had originally filed an appeal on 04.08.2025 in ITA No.1259/Hyd/2025, well within the prescribed

M/S. Chatrachaya Property Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. ACIT, CC-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1795/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1795/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Chatrachaya Property Holdings Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, Studio N - Sy No. 70, Income Tax/Dc, Narne Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Central Circle 1(2), Manikonda, Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan:Aafcc4753J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Vinita Shah, Ca (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.05.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Besides Challenging The Issue On Merits In Restricting The Addition By The Ld. Cit(A), The Assessee Has Challenged In Invoking The Provisions Of Section 153A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Shah, CA (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 131Section 132Section 132ASection 153ASection 68

assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR Ms. Vinita Shah, CA submits that no search was conducted in the case of the assessee and no Panchnama

Ramita Chaudhuri, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 69(1), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4392/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Ramita Chaudhuri, Ward-69(1), Block C-1, Flat No.1002, Vs. Delhi. The Legend, Sector-57, Gurgaon. Pan-Aappc4405P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anil Sethi, Ca Department By Shri Krishna Kumar Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Gwalior (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short), Dated 18.03.2025 In Appeal No. Nfac/2020-21/10197234 For Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. From The Perusal Of The Record, It Is Seen That Filing The Appeal Is Delayed By 55 Days, For Which Condonation Application Is Filed. In The Said Application, It Is Stated That When The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Was Served Upon The Assessee She Was Residing Abroad In Madrid, Spain & Was Not In India. She Returned To India On 20Th June, 2025 From Span. Due To This Reason, The Delay Of 55 Days Was Occurred In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Also Filed An Affidavit In Support Of The Ramita Chaudhuri Vs. Ito Averments Made In The Application For Condonation Of Delay. Considering The Facts & Explanation Given In The Application, We Find That Assessee Has Been Able To Demonstrate That There Is Reasonable Cause In Filing The Appeal Delayed. Considering These Facts, We Condoned The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication On Merits.

returned to India on 20th June, 2025 from Span. Due to this reason, the delay of 55 days was occurred in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee also filed an affidavit in support of the Ramita Chaudhuri vs. ITO averments made in the application for condonation of delay

Harsh Vardhan Singh, New Delhi vs. PCIT- 12, Delhi, New Dellhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1583/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalharsh Vardhan Singh, Pcit-12, A-251, Iind Floor, Delhi. Defence Colony, Vs. New Delhi-110024. Pan-Bcnps9161A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 2Section 263

fresh order after making necessary verification of all the imports made by the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The main contention of the ld. AR is that the case

Diamond Realcon Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, Appeal in ITA

ITA 1260/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1260/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/S Diamond Realcon Private Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Shop No. 68, Building No. 38, Faridabad, Surya House, Near Pnb, Devli, Haryana-121001 Khanpur, New Delhi-110062 Pan: Aadcd6696H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Ms.Suman Malik, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2025

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 68

known to law, the Assessee has not objected or raised the above contention before the Lower Authorities, now in the stage of the appeal before the Tribunal, raising the said issue for the first time, which cannot be maintainable, thus sought for dismissal of Ground No. 2. 6. We have

Diamond Realcon Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, Appeal in ITA

ITA 1259/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 68

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Shri Ram Udyog, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 5226/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Shri Ram Udyog, Delhi. 1707 Block, E-2, Vs. Civic Centre, Delhi-110002. Pan-Addfs0045F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal wherein the following grounds of appeal are taken by the assessee: “1. The CIT (A) has erred in low and facts

Starkey Laboratories India Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT Circle-24(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3205/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalstarkey Laboratories Dy. Cit, India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-24(2), C-2, Sector-7, Vs. New Delhi. Gautam Buddha Nagar-201301, Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Aakcs6072R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(1)(b)Section 37(1)Section 92C

dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the disallowance so made. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding

Manamohan Sahoo, Puri vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward, Puri

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

ITA 622/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pranay Kumar MishraFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false. Ld. Sr. DR did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay ... days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. It was the prayer that the matter may be restored

Magadh Homiopathik Medical Collage and Hospital, Bihar Sharif vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Patna

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

ITA 334/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

therefore, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 5. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. At the outset, ld. A.R. submitted that the order passed