← 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

Whole Stationery Product (P) Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-27(3), Delhi

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

ITA 4323/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalwhole Stationery Products Pvt. Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Ward-27(3), 19 Igi, Gurgaon Road, Vs. Delhi. Kapashera, Delhi-110097 Pan-Aaacw0263A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Khitesh Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.11.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 06.12.2023 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) Dated 29.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 518 Days For Which An Application For Condonation Of Delay Is Filed Wherein It Is Stated That The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Was Sent On Incorrect Mail Id & When The Assessee Has Received The Follow Up Communication From The Ao, It Had Come To The Knowledge Of The Assessee About Whole Stationery Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito The Passing Of The Appellate Order. It Is In This Background, A Request Is Made To Condone The Delay.

Section 147

request is made to condone the delay. 3. Heard the parties on delay. There was delay of 518 days in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. The reasons stated in the petition have not been found to be false and it is also a matter of fact that the assessee

Shri Krishan Sharma, Faridabad vs. Ward 2(3) Faridabad, Faridabad

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4315/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Khitesh Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 69A

stands dismissed. 6. In the result the appeal is Dismissed.” 3.1. This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved who has filed his instant appeal before the tribunal. 4. Both the learned representatives vehemently reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the impugned addition. The assessee has further filed

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs. M/S Bright Buildtech Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4106/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year 2021-22] Dcit Vs M/S. Bright Buildtech Pvt.Ltd., Central Circle -1, D-35, Anand Vihar & Vihar, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, Anand Vihar, S.O-East Delhi, Noida-201301. Delhi-110092 Pan-Aaccb7981J Appellant Respondent

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

vide order dated 09.04.2025, allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Noida

Mohd. Alam Quershi, Moradabad vs. ITO Ward-1(1), Moradabad

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 3986/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalmohd. Alam Quershi, Income Tax Officer, 0, Gol Kothi, Depduty Ganj, Ward-1(1), Moradabad-244001, Vs. Moradabad. Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Aadpq4002B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Ca & Shri P.K. Mishra, Ca Department By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr 19.11.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 19.11.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A) In Short], Dated 17.02.2025 In Appeal No. Nfac/2014-15/10282979 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Dated 19.05.2023 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened On The Basis Of Information Received That There Were Larger Credits In The Bank Account Of The Assessee & There Is Mismatch In The Income Declared By The Assessee & Credits In The Bank Account & Accordingly, Notice U/S 148 Was Issued On 06.04.2021. Mohd. Alam Qureshi Vs. Ito Thereafter, In Terms Of The Order Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Union Of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal & Ors. In Civil Appeal No. 3005/2002, The Said Notice Was Treated As Notice U/S 148A(2) Of The Act. After Passing The Order U/S 148A(D) Of The Act, A Fresh Notice U/S 148 Was Issued On 29.07.2022. In Response, The Assessee Filed The Return On 28.08.2022 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 3,90,230/-. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B At An Income Of Rs. 58,64,382/- By Making Addition Of Rs. 54,74,132/-.

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 148A(2)

appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4 Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 49 days for which an application for condonation of delay was filed

Takenaka India Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. JCIT, Circle-25(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2848/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 438Section 43B

appeal of the assessee and confirmed disallowance made by the CPC. 3. Thus, aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking the following grounds of appeals:- “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both on facts

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad vs. Arun Kumar, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1035/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal & C.O 118/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Arun Kumar Income Tax 201-202, 2Nd Ii-F-3 Nehru Nagar Ghaziabad Floor Cgo Complex 201001 Uttar Pradesh Hapur Chungi Ghaziabad -201002 Pan No. Aeapk1314B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr.Dr Respondent By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Agarwal Adv

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 67Section 68

Arun Kumar partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee also filed the cross objection in the above said appeal. 5. The Ld. DR submitted that as per the enquiry conducted by investigation

DCIT, Central Circle-8, Delhi, Jhandewalan vs. Sanjay Sales Agency, Fatehpuri, Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 963/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115BSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

income and no addition could be made once again in respect of the same. 5. The findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal, which are purely in the nature of the factual findings, do not require any interference and, in any event, no substantial question ... Vishal Exports Overseas Limited (Gujarat High Court) Tax Appeal No. 2471 of 2009 held as under:- 5. Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal did not address the question of correctness of the C.1. T. (Appeals)'s conclusion that amount of Rs.70 lakhs represented the genuine

Shokeen Construction Co., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30 Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5973/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 250Section 37

vide order dated 16.12.2024, 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:- 1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice u/s 153C issued

Shokeen Construction Co., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5972/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 250Section 37

vide order dated 16.12.2024, 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:- 1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice u/s 153C issued

Shokeen Construction Co., Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-30, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5971/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 250Section 37

vide order dated 16.12.2024, 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:- 1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice u/s 153C issued

Kasturi Devi, Etah vs. Income Tax Officer, Etah

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 7/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals), who also dismissed assessee’s appeal and confirmed the assessment order. 5. Assessee has filed this second appeal before the Tribunal on the following grounds : 1. That the Id. AO has erred in making addition of Rs.47,41,469/- u/s. 68 of the Income

Toran Lal Verma, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 573/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.573/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Toran Lal Varma House No.39, Ward-3, Village: Kachandur, Post-Karanja, Bhilai-490 024 (C.G.) Pan: Akfpv6450J

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 253(3)

herein and considering the contents of the affidavits, I find merit in the prayer made by the assessee that such delay of filing appeal before the Tribunal was not deliberate or malafide and accordingly, the said delay of 121 days in filing of the appeal is condoned 4 Toran

Aditya Tractors, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Office Ward1(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, ground No. 2 raised by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 855/RJT/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot26 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 40Section 43B

condonation of delay before this Tribunal and urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay of 93 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. However, learned DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay. A perusal of the reasons and sufficient ... appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) also disallowed the transportation expenses of Rs.2,10,706/-, therefore, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 8. I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished

Aditya Tractors, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Ward 1(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, ground No. 2 raised by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 352/RJT/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot26 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 40Section 43B

condonation of delay before this Tribunal and urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay of 93 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. However, learned DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay. A perusal of the reasons and sufficient ... appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) also disallowed the transportation expenses of Rs.2,10,706/-, therefore, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 8. I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished

Sarvodaya Samaj Kalyan Sansthan, Jamui vs. CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 563/PAT/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2018-19 dated 25.06.2024. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the order passed by learned Commission of Income-tax (Appeals) confirming the order passed ... hence charging of tax at MMR was sustained. 6. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. ITA No.: 563/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sarvodaya Samaj Kalyan Sansthan 7. We have heard the Ld. DR. Before us, the assessee

Mahamedsuhel Abdulkadir Kaduji, Bharuch vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Bharuch

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 566/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.566/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Mahamedsuhel Abdulkadir Kaduji, Vs. Ito, Mota Chakla Kavi, Jambusar, Ward – 1(1), Bharuch – 392170, Gujarat Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Amipk5119Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukund Rao, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

addition made by AO. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal of the appellant. 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that the appellant is carrying on business of foreign money transfer

Meena Vijay Desai, Na vs. Arivs.Ward 3, Navsari, Gujarat

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

ITA 435/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 250

which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression "sufficient cause" liberally we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. From the records, we noticed that assessee was ex- parte beforeLd. CIT(A). In this regard Ld. AR explained the circumstances before

Sathaiya Ganapathy, Pudukottai vs. ITO, Ward 1, Bardoli

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

ITA 330/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

Section 111ASection 16Section 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Accordingly, order u/s.250 of the Act was passed by the CIT(A). 7. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.23,41,300/- made on account ... reduced the relief granted by him in his appellate order. 17. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that in the appellate order, the CIT(A) did not make any mention of the TDS credit

Sathaiya Ganapathy, Pudukottai vs. ITO, Ward 1, Bardoli

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

ITA 329/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

Section 111ASection 16Section 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Accordingly, order u/s.250 of the Act was passed by the CIT(A). 7. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.23,41,300/- made on account ... reduced the relief granted by him in his appellate order. 17. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that in the appellate order, the CIT(A) did not make any mention of the TDS credit

Madhvi Ajitkumar Ranka, Na vs. Arivs.ACIT, Navsari Circle, Navsari

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 124/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.124/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Madhvi Ajitkumar Ranka, Vs. Acit, 88, Sunder Nagar, Jamalpore, Navsari Circle, Navsari – 396445 Navsari "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahfpr5791K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Darshit J. Naik, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

Section 250Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 68

terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit, the assessee submitted that he had no knowledge of Income-tax law. He appointed Mr. Bhadresh Soni, tax consultant, who looked ... view of CBDT Circular No. 11/2019 dated 19.06.2019. 11. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted the paper book including copy of audit report, replies filed before AO and CIT(A), ledger accounts