← All Phrases

“first appeal”

AppealsSection 246ASection 246A5,395 judgments

The decision most relied on for first appeal is CIT v. Union Tyres (240 ITR 556), cited in 135 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on first appeal

CIT v. Union Tyres
240 ITR 556 · 1999 · High Court
135
citing judgments

The first appellate authority, the Commissioner (Appeals), cannot enhance an assessment by considering a new scope or source of income that was not part of the original assessment proceedings. Its power to enhance under Section 251(1)(a) is restricted to what was originally assessed.

Sanjay Sawhney v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax
116 Taxmann.com 701 · 2020 · High Court
87
citing judgments

Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules allows a respondent to defend a favourable order of the CIT(A) by raising grounds decided against them, even without filing an appeal or cross-objection. Such issues can be raised orally and for the first time before the Tribunal.

Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
156 ITR 54 · 1985 · High Court
59
citing judgments

An appellate authority can admit and adjudicate a new legal ground for the first time, even if not raised in earlier appellate proceedings, provided its omission was neither willful nor unreasonable.

Kiran Singh & Ors. v. Chaman Paswan & Ors.
1 SCR 117 · 1955 · Supreme Court
55
citing judgments

A decree or proceeding initiated by an authority without jurisdiction is a nullity, void ab initio, and its invalidity can be raised at any stage, including in collateral proceedings or for the first time on appeal, as a defect of jurisdiction cannot be cured even by consent.

CIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar
74 ITR 41 · 1969 · Supreme Court
40
citing judgments

The first appellate authority cannot dismiss an appeal for default without disposing of the grounds on merits. Dismissal without going into the merits is not justified.

Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax
408 ITR 500 · 2018 · High Court
32
citing judgments

A tribunal can exercise its discretion to admit an additional ground of appeal, even if raised for the first time, provided it considers the facts and circumstances of the case.

CIT v. Geo Industries and Insecticides (1) Pvt Ltd.
96 TTJ 211 · 2005 · ITAT
30
citing judgments

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) can adjudicate a fresh claim raised for the first time before it, provided it is permissible under the law.

Ramco Cements Ltd. v. DCIT
373 ITR 146 · 2015 · High Court
28
citing judgments

An assessee can make a claim of deduction for the first time before the appellate authorities.

Judgments citing first appeal

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji vs. M/S Mohit Ispat Ltd., Kundaim

Appeal of the Revenue is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

ITA 9/PAN/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Oct 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S M/S Mohit Ispat Limited 339/340, Kundaim Industrial Estate, Goa-403115 Pan: Aaccm8154E . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Shriniwas Naik & Narchiva Lotlikar [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr Naveen Kumar [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 04/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Appeal Of The Revenue Instituted U/S 253(2) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Challenges Order Dt. 04/10/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-2, Panaji Goa [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Sprung From Order Of Assessment Dt. 30/12/2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Acit, Central Circle, Panaji Goa [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2016-17.[‘Ay’]

For Appellant: Mr Shriniwas Naik & Narchiva Lotlikar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Naveen Kumar [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 253(2)

findings, the net addition as ‘unexplained investment’ u/s 69 of the Act after giving credit therefore was restricted to ₹6,98,306/-. 5. In first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the former addition upon satisfying that, while computing the aforestated excess stock of inventory, the Ld. AO did fail ... treated as sold out of books and accordingly added ₹2,32,01,070/- to total income as ‘unaccounted sales’ of the business. 11. In first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the former addition on finding that, the difference of excess of stock of scrap was wrongly taken which rather

Jap Restaurant Private Limited, Anjuna vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji

Appeals stands DISMISSED

ITA 7/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Oct 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr Prabhakar Anand [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 153ASection 250Section 253(1)

sake of brevity & convenience are heard together for being disposed- off by this common & consolidated order. 4. In adjudicating these matters together, the first appeal ITA No. 005/PAN/2024 is taken as lead case, resultantly our adjudication laid in succeeding paragraphs shall mutatis-mutandis apply to remaining appeals. 5. Without touching ... being the date on receipt of appeal by the Registry of ITAT, Panaji, Goa]. The Revenue claimed that, the impugned order dt. 16/09/2022 dismissing first appeal against the order of assessment was passed by the Ld. AO on 17/04/2021 was duly served by it on even date through (i) placing

Jap Restaurant Private Limited, Anjuna vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji

Appeals stands DISMISSED

ITA 6/PAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Oct 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr Prabhakar Anand [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 153ASection 250Section 253(1)

sake of brevity & convenience are heard together for being disposed- off by this common & consolidated order. 4. In adjudicating these matters together, the first appeal ITA No. 005/PAN/2024 is taken as lead case, resultantly our adjudication laid in succeeding paragraphs shall mutatis-mutandis apply to remaining appeals. 5. Without touching ... being the date on receipt of appeal by the Registry of ITAT, Panaji, Goa]. The Revenue claimed that, the impugned order dt. 16/09/2022 dismissing first appeal against the order of assessment was passed by the Ld. AO on 17/04/2021 was duly served by it on even date through (i) placing

Jap Restaurant Private Limited, Anjuna vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji

Appeals stands DISMISSED

ITA 5/PAN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Oct 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr Prabhakar Anand [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 153ASection 250Section 253(1)

sake of brevity & convenience are heard together for being disposed- off by this common & consolidated order. 4. In adjudicating these matters together, the first appeal ITA No. 005/PAN/2024 is taken as lead case, resultantly our adjudication laid in succeeding paragraphs shall mutatis-mutandis apply to remaining appeals. 5. Without touching ... being the date on receipt of appeal by the Registry of ITAT, Panaji, Goa]. The Revenue claimed that, the impugned order dt. 16/09/2022 dismissing first appeal against the order of assessment was passed by the Ld. AO on 17/04/2021 was duly served by it on even date through (i) placing

Chitra Avdhesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 33 (1) (3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 3229/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

taxed @ 30% under section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the hands of the assessee. 6. In the first appeal, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the AO by observing that the documents submitted as evidence to prove the genuineness of the transaction ... surfaced directly in the order of assessment and were never confronted by ld AO during the course of assessment 11 proceedings. Further, in the first appeal filed by assessee against the said order of assessment, the said issue of cross examination was raised before ld. CIT (A) which was never

Shashi Bala, Ballabgarh vs. ITO Ward 4(1)(1), Aligarh

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 426/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Aug 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 69Section 69A

vide 2 | P a g e assessment order dated 22.03.2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. 3. Assessee preferred first appeal before learned CIT(Appeals), who after making detailed discussion, set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for passing assessment afresh

Sh Sanjay Bansal, Morena vs. A.C.I.T (Central), Gwalior

In the result, assessee's appeal is dismissed

ITA 31/AGR/2022[2012 - 13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra05 Jun 2026

Bench: learned CIT(Appeals) who has very exhaustively passed the impugned order in 60 pages and considered all the submissions of the assessee in the tabulated form and otherwise, which need not to be repeated again for the sake of brevity. However, learned CIT(Appeals) partly allowed assessee's appeal confirming the addition only to the extent of Rs.71,44,045/- as against addition of Rs.91,06,669/-. 4. Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on the following grounds : "1.Because in any view, th

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

account and the cash deposited into the referred account, the Assessing Officer added the aforesaid amount to the income of the assessee. Assessee filed first appeal before learned CIT(Appeals) who has very 3. exhaustively passed the impugned order in 60 pages and considered all the submissions of the assessee

The Regional Manager State Bank of India, Farrukhabad vs. ITO (TDS), Aligarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 199/AGR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 May 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 192Section 201

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH “SMC”: AGRA BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 199/AGR/2022 (Assessment Year: 2014

Hcl Infosystems Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-25(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 8055/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarhcl Infosystems Ltd Vs. Dcit 806, 96, Nehru Place, Circle-25(2) South Delhi 110019 New Delhi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach 2420 C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 68

completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2008 at total income of Rs.2,32,45,33,297/- after making various additions. 3. First appeal by Ld. CIT(A) was decided on 01.08.2013. Tribunal vide order dated 26.05.2017 deleted various disallowances and remanded the matter to Ld. AO qua issue

Durga Machtech Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. ITO, TDS Ward-1, Pune

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2738/PUN/2025[2015-16(26Q-Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha (Virtual)
Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

basis of facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, the Ld CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, if any. The limitation in filing the appeal is not applicable when the jurisdiction is under challenge by the assessee. The assessee, therefore, prays

Durga Machtech Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. ITO, TDS Ward-1, Pune

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2737/PUN/2025[2015-16(26q-q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha (Virtual)
Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

basis of facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, the Ld CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, if any. The limitation in filing the appeal is not applicable when the jurisdiction is under challenge by the assessee. The assessee, therefore, prays

Durga Machtech Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. ITO, TDS Ward-1, Pune

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2736/PUN/2025[2015-16(24Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha (Virtual)
Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

basis of facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, the Ld CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, if any. The limitation in filing the appeal is not applicable when the jurisdiction is under challenge by the assessee. The assessee, therefore, prays

Durga Machtech Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. ITO, TDS Ward-1, Pune

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2735/PUN/2025[2015-16(24Q-Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha (Virtual)
Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

basis of facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, the Ld CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, if any. The limitation in filing the appeal is not applicable when the jurisdiction is under challenge by the assessee. The assessee, therefore, prays

Durga Machtech Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. ITO, TDS Ward-1, Pune

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2734/PUN/2025[2014-15(Q26-Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha (Virtual)
Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

basis of facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, the Ld CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, if any. The limitation in filing the appeal is not applicable when the jurisdiction is under challenge by the assessee. The assessee, therefore, prays

Durga Machtech Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. ITO, TDS Ward-1, Pune

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2733/PUN/2025[2014-15(24Q-Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha (Virtual)
Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

basis of facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, the Ld CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, if any. The limitation in filing the appeal is not applicable when the jurisdiction is under challenge by the assessee. The assessee, therefore, prays

Durga Machtech Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. ITO, TDS Ward-1, Pune

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2732/PUN/2025[2013-14(26Q-Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha (Virtual)
Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

basis of facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, the Ld CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, if any. The limitation in filing the appeal is not applicable when the jurisdiction is under challenge by the assessee. The assessee, therefore, prays

Durga Machtech Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. ITO, TDS Ward-1, Pune

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2731/PUN/2025[2013-14(26Q-Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha (Virtual)
Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

basis of facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, the Ld CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, if any. The limitation in filing the appeal is not applicable when the jurisdiction is under challenge by the assessee. The assessee, therefore, prays

Durga Machtech Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. ITO, TDS Ward-1, Pune

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2730/PUN/2025[2013-14(26Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha (Virtual)
Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

basis of facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, the Ld CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, if any. The limitation in filing the appeal is not applicable when the jurisdiction is under challenge by the assessee. The assessee, therefore, prays

Durga Machtech Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. ITO, TDS Ward-1, Pune

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2729/PUN/2025[2013-14(24Q-Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha (Virtual)
Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

basis of facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, the Ld CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, if any. The limitation in filing the appeal is not applicable when the jurisdiction is under challenge by the assessee. The assessee, therefore, prays

Durga Machtech Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. ITO, TDS Ward-1, Pune

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2728/PUN/2025[2013-14(24Q-Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha (Virtual)
Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

basis of facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, the Ld CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, if any. The limitation in filing the appeal is not applicable when the jurisdiction is under challenge by the assessee. The assessee, therefore, prays