“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

Savita Devi, Supaul, Bihar, India vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Saharsa, Bihar

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

ITA 157/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250Section 69

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2015-16 dated 22.02.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and Bank Certified Copy of FD Rs 5.33 Lakhs ... appellant is treated as dismissed in limine” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The assessee was seeking adjournment but the same was refused as the reason for adjournment were not specified and the appeal was heard

Bahadurpur Patory Prathmik Krishi Sakh Samiti Limited, Samastipur vs. CIT(Appeal), Muzaffarpur

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

ITA 706/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

unexplained cash deposit. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 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 at the time of hearing. Therefore, we have decided to dispose of the appeal after

Amit Kumar Verma, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6(1), Patna

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

ITA 357/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2015-16 dated 18.10.2023. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the CIT (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in passing order confirming ... result, the appeal is Partly Allowed.” 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 before us that that there was a land development

Ghanshyambhai Sutaria, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 465/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.465/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Ghanshyambhai Sutaria, Vs. Ito, 12 Kubernagar Katargam, Chorasi, Ward - 3(2)(1), Surat - 395004 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadhg8777M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Abhishek Gautam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

source of investment. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal of the appellant. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that the appellant was not given adequate opportunity of hearing by the lower authorities

Vanmalibhai Muljibhai Patel L/H Ranjanben Deepakbhai Patel, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward 5, Navsari

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

ITA 345/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.345/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Vanmalibhai Muljibhai Patel, Vs. Ito, L/H Of Ranjanben Deepakbhai Patel Ward - 5, 16, Shrinikunj Society, Ashabaug, Navsari Navsari - 396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abjpp3114G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Ms. Jayshree Thakur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

Section 127Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)

aside the order of AO for de novo adjudication. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted paper books including copies of the notice u/s 148 dated 29.03.2018, notice

Kumar Gaurav Sharma, Currently Employed in Usa vs. Assessing Officer, Pune

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

ITA 598/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 90

Chennai [“Addl./JCIT(A)"] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2019-20. 2. There is a delay of 03 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After hearing both the sides ... Rectification Order by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is confirmed. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed." 6. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the return of income for relevant

Umbrella Gold Trading Commodities Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(1), Pune

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

ITA 2330/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Umbrella Gold Trading & Ito, Ward 7(1), Pune Commodities Private Limited Laxmi Puran, Phase Ii, S Vs. No.157/A2, Yerwada, Pune – 411006 Pan: Aabcu7553N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhavik Chheda Department By : Smt. Indira R. Adakil, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 03-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Bhavik ChhedaFor Respondent: Smt. Indira R. Adakil, Addl.CIT

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 37Section 69A

decisions, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the notice was issued by the Assessing Officer after obtaining

Satendra Kumar, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar

In the result, ground no.1 and

ITA 6994/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Satendra Kumar, Income Tax Officer, H. No.60, Gali No.2, Mamura, Noida, Vs Gautam Budh Nagar, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201301 Uttar Pradesh-201301 Pan:Arwpk 1280 B Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271ASection 68

basis of such observations, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. I have heard the submissions of learned Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee as well as the learned Senior Departmental Representative

Sh. Vivek Gupta, Haryana vs. ACIT/DCIT, Haryana

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

ITA 5037/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Shri Vivek Gupta Vs Acit/Dcit C-5/2A, Opp. C. C. Colony Central Circle Rana Pratap Bagh, North Delhi Karnal Delhi-110007 Pan-Aappg4029A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Ms. Uma Upadhyay, Ca Respondent By Ms. Amisha S.Gupt, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.12.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.07.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-3, Gurgaon [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.10453/2019-20 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Were Carried Out At The Business Premises Of M/S. Oswal Group Of Cases, Karnal & Residential Premises Of Its Members On 22.01.2018. The Case Of The Assessee Was Also Covered U/S 132 Of The Act. Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 28.07.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Inr 13,36,300/-. Thereafter, Statutory Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued On 23.04.2019 Followed By Notices U/S 142(1) Of The Act Alongwith Questionnaire Issued From Time To Time. In Response To Above, Assessee Filed Replies. Thereafter, The Ao Passed The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Of The Act Dated 29.12.2019 Assessing Total Income Of The Assessee At Inr 81,59,730/-.

Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 250Section 69Section 69A

vide order dated 29.07.2025, 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:- 1. “On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, order passed by the learned Commissioner

Patel Kalidas Meghjibhai (HUF), Surat vs. DCIT Circle-3(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 85/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.85/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Patel Kalidas Meghjibhai Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, बनाम/ (Huf) Circle-3(2), Surat, Room No.410, Vs. 901, Solitaire Brijwasi Estate, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Opp. Umrigar School Hotel Surat-395 001 Marriott Road, Umra, Surat- 395 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajhp 1504 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the assessee furnished a paper book containing chart of agriculture land owned by the appellant and corresponding gross agriculture

Jaya Rinkubhai Bandukwala, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(1) Surat, Surat

ITA 452/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.451 & 452/Srt/2025

Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)

made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the appellant. 8. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), appellant has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that this is a case of very limited compliance before the AO and no compliance before ... additions made by the AO and dismissing the appeal of the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant appointed another Counsel and immediately filed the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR stated that the appellant come from middle class background and work as a primary teacher in a private school

Jaya Rinkubhai Bandukwala, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(1) Surat, Surat

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 451/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.451 & 452/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Jaya Rinkubhai Bandukwala Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 1/611,Dhatigara Street, Ward -3(3)(1), Surat-395 001 Vs. Timaliyawad, Manpura, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bbfpb 1989 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)

Vikas Vaishnav, Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Surat

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

ITA 309/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.309/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Vikas Vaishnav Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ Plot No.261/262, 2Nd Floor, Income-Tax, Surat-1, Income Tax Vs. Office, 123, 1St Floor, Aaykar Right Side, Jay Santoshi Nagar, L.H. Road, Surat – 394 210 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Anspv 9504 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 147Section 194ISection 263Section 40

discussion made in the order u/s 263 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. PCIT, the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the assessee, at the outset, submitted that ITA No.309/SRT/2025/AY.2018-19 Vikas Vaishnav the Ld.PCIT did not serve any notice

Mukeshkumar Balmukund Agarwal (HUF), Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(3)(3), Surat

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 139/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.139/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Mukeshkumar Balmukund Agarwal Vs. Ito, (Huf), Ward – 1(3)(3), 9A, Ratan Shyam Apartment, Nr. Surat Panjrapole, Ghod Dod Road, Surat – 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aachm3444A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/12/2025

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 250Section 253(3)

days in terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing appeal before this Tribunal. In the affidavit, the assessee submitted that the e-mail Id, i.e., ‘vipulgroupvti@yahoo.com’ was mentioned in Form 35. The appellant did not check ... know about the appellate order, he downloaded it from ITD portal. Thereafter, the appellant consulted a new consultant who advised him to file appeal before the Tribunal. He submitted that the delay was not intentional and it was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause for not filing the appeal

Kirit Babubhai Jhaveri, Surat vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the of cost of Rs

ITA 52/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.52/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) Kirit Babubhai Jhaveri, Vs. Acit, 22, Zaveri Bungalow, Opp – Circle – 2(2), Meghna Park, City Light Road, Surat Surat – 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabpz4942P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54B

same, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 11. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the cost of improvement of Rs.3,55,200/- has been claimed on account of expense incurred

Late Priyank Narendrabhai Patel Through His Lh Narendrabhai Patel, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-01 Bardoli, Bardoli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1300/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1300/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Late Priyank Narendrabhai Patel, Vs. Ito, Through His L/H Narendrabhai Patel, Ward – 2, At & Post – Tundi, Tal – Palsana, Bardoli Surat - 394315 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Asapp4783F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hiren Vepari, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/12/2025

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

appellant had not furnished any documentary evidence during the assessment proceedings. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted two paper books containing 67 pages including copy of death certificate of Priyank

Shriram Sahadev Rawool, Sindhudurg vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kudal

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

ITA 2159/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 Shriram Sahadev Rawool Ito, Ward – 1, Kudal At Post Parule, Near Vetoba Vs. Temple, Vengarle, Sindhudurg, Maharashtra – 416510 Pan: Ahmpr7876C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Smt. Indira R. Adakil, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 03-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Indira R. Adakil, Addl.CIT

Section 112Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

only supports that they are non-agricultural land. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Dhaval Vinod Gada, Pune vs. DCIT Circle-5, Pune

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

ITA 1817/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 Dhaval Vinod Gada Dcit, Circle – 5, Pune 101, New Timber Market, Vs. Bhawani Peth, Pune – 411042 Pan: Anjpg4733A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri A D Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 26-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

Assessing Officer by observing as under: 4 5 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in sustaining the addition made

ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Netcracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 96/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

shown at Serial No. A(11) of ITR. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 4 NetCracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited, 6. The only issue that came up for our consideration from Ground

Sudhaker Munigeti, Adilabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Adilabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 471/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.471/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years – 2019-2020 Sudhaker Munigeti, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Adilabad – 504 001. Ward-1, Telangana. Adilabad. Pan Acapm9247K Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca, A Srinivas राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms Malathi B. Sr. Ar

For Appellant: CA, A SrinivasFor Respondent: MS Malathi B. Sr. AR

Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 48

assessee upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 6. Aggrieved by the Order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before the Tribunal, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the notice issued u/sec.148 on 29.03.2023 is barred