“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

citing judgments

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

Judgments citing first appeal

Morni Sarees Private Limited, Indore vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, Income Tax Department

ITA 909/IND/2024[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Indore24 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 36Section 43B

which date is prior to order u/s 154 dated 24.02.2023 (supra)], the assessee being aggrieved by the "impugned intimation” had also filed “first appeal” in terms of Section 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order" has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on reasons

Sanjeev Agrawal, Bhopal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2, Bhopal

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and “impugned

ITA 899/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Indore24 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 253

aforesaid assessment order is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned assessment order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on grounds/reasons stated

Mahatma Gandhi State Institute of Rural Developement, Adhartal vs. ACIT TDS, Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 820/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani, Accountant

Section 1Section 139Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

interest u/s 201(1A) at Rs.78,65,660/-; total demand aggregating to Rs.1,86,40,537/-. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first appeal but could not succeed. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us. Page 3 of 6 Mahatma Gandhi State Institute of Rural Development

Jaykrishnan Nair, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 732/IND/2024[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Indore24 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 144Section 246ASection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

dated 04.12.2017 which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned assessment order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the grounds ... assessment order” is required to be filed within 30 days of the receipt of order. However the assessee sought condonation of delay in preferring first appeal on ground that the assessee was a commercial pilot and his source of income is salary income which he receives from time to time

Jaykrishnan Nair, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -3(1, Bhopal

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 538/IND/2024[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Indore24 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 144Section 246ASection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

Shree Cement Limited, Bangur Nagar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

ITA 1517/JPR/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dilip B. Desai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 254Section 36(1)(va)Section 80Section 801A

appellant filed rectification petition, and partial relief was granted by the AO vide rectification order u/s 154 rw.s. 143(3) dated 31.01.2021. On first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee on this ground During further appeal by the assessee company, the Hon'ble ITAT

Arnab Das, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 46(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 769/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). It Was Averred That The Assessee Filed A Petition Seeking Condonation Of Said Delay Before The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Ar Pointed Out That The Reasons For Seeking Condonation Were Mentioned On Page 3 Of The Impugned Order. Thereafter, The Ld. Ar Stated That Instead Of Hearing The Appeal On Merit The Ld. Cit(A) Passed An Order Dismissing The Appeal By Not Admitting The Same For 2 Arnab Das Adjudication. The Ld. Ar Prayed That The Assessee May Be Allowed An Opportunity To Plead His Case Before The Ld. First Appellate Authority By Giving One Opportunity To Do So.

Section 250

this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Needless to say, we are condoning the delay in filing the first appeal and we expect that the Ld. CIT(A) would pass a speaking order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee

Ravindra Sadanand Marballi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 31(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal raised

ITA 2262/MUM/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) Ravindrasadanandmarballi Ito-31(3)(1), Mumbai B-6, Shreeniketan, Pandurangwadi, Vs Kautilyabhavan, Bandrakurla Goregaon East, Maharashtra – 400063. Complex, Maharashtra-400051 [Pan No. Almpm2657E] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 144Section 147Section 254(1)

dismissed the appeal of assessee in limine by not condoning the delay of 30 days in filing first appeal. 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that assessment was completed under section

Fule Ambedkar College of Social Work, Gadchiroli vs. ITO TDS 52(3), Chandrapur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 226/NAG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Lakkadsha, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjith Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.DR

Section 234ESection 250

receiving and complying with the impugned intimation/order dated 24/01/2016. However, once demand notice was issued by the Department, then only the assessee filed first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. Admittedly, the issue is covered in favour of the assessee, since late fee pertains to the Quarter

Dnyaneshwar Bapurao Chunade, Bhadrawati vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Chandrapur

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

ITA 624/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250

been made by the Assessing Officer, mainly for want of limitation and/or delay of 202 days in filing the first appeal before him and not giving any explanation with regard to such delay. The assessee in Form No.35 specified the reasons for condonation of delay, which reads as under ... file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh on the application for condonation of delay of 202 days in filling of the first appeal before him and on condoning the delay, to pass the decision on merits. 4 ITA.No. 624/NAG/2024 5. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

The Aroor Central Service Co-Operative Bank Limited, Alappuzha vs. ITO, Ward -2, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeals and stay applications filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 372/COCH/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Varma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

above appeal is filed against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 dated 20.03.2024vide DIN ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1063017274(1)) since the first appeal was dismissed. 3. The petitioner is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society (PACS) and filed Return of Income belatedly dated 29-10- 2019 by claiming deduction ... 372/Coch/2025/SA 51 & 52/C/2024 The Aroor Central Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. the High Court would stand rejected and the Miscellaneous First Appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by time. No costs." 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pundlilk Jalam Patil (dead) by LRs vs Executive Engineer

The Aroor Central Service Co-Operative Bank Limited, Alappuzha vs. ITO, Ward -5, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeals and stay applications filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 371/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Varma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

Avdhesh, Patel Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhar

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 802/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 144Section 69A

Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 23.06.2025 smez1/O RDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 14.09.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated ... Income Tax Act, 1961.” 2. The registry has informed that the present appeal has been filed on 11.11.2024 against impugned order dated 14.09.2023 of first-appeal passed by Ld. CIT(A), therefore it is delayed by about 1 year and hence time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee firstly submitted that

JCIT OSD Central-1, Bhopal vs. M/S Shakshi Town Ship P Ltd, Gwalior

ITA 94/IND/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 127Section 129Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 27.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 23.06.2025 आदेश/ORDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 05.02.2021 passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)-3, Bhopal [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 18.12.2018 passed ... loans - Rs. 4,77,62,500/- and passed reassessment-order determining total income at Rs.4,97,62,500/-. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A). 3. Before CIT(A), the assessee challenged the order of AO on legality as well as merit. The CIT(A) rejected

Nanag Ram Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed as indicated

ITA 1398/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Issuing The Notice U/S 148. The Action Of The Ld. Ao Was Illegal & Therefore Deserves To Be Quashed Or Set Aside. 2

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Gupta, CA andFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT -DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54F

delay with following prayers. ''The delay in filing the present appeal has occurred due to genuine and unavoidable circumstances as detailed herein below. 17.08.2023 First Appeal Order passed by the Hon'ble CIT, Appeals. 20.09.2023 Ld. AO's Order giving effect to the Appellate order of CIT (A) dated ... event held in the present case were as under:- 7 ITA NO. 1398/JP/2024 SHRI NANAG RAM MEENA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR 17.08.2023 First Appeal Order passed by the Hon'ble CIT, Appeals. 20.09.2023 Ld. AO's Order giving effect to the Appellate order of CIT (A) dated 17.08.2023 with

Safe Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 6(2), Jaipur

Appeal of the appellant are hereby dismissed’’

ITA 1335/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Shivpuri, Advocate and Shri Utkarsh Shara, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 245BSection 69CSection 6C

concealed the facts. Therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)© is separately initiated.’’ SAFE INFRACON PVT LTD VS ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR 3.2 In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order by dismissing the appeal of the assessee observing that no further response/ submission had been received

Safe Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2), Jaipur

Appeal of the appellant are hereby dismissed’’

ITA 1334/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Shivpuri, Advocate and Shri Utkarsh Shara, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 245BSection 69CSection 6C

Shri Dhairyasheel Shivaji Patil, Satara vs. ACIT Circle, Satara

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

ITA 1868/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dr. Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 68

/NFAC. 7. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides & perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find that the first appeal order was passed ex-parte since the assessee remained absent before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Considering the totality of the facts of the case

Alauddin, Agra vs. ITO, Ward 1(1)(1), Agra

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

ITA 241/AGR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra20 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(14)Section 250Section 54

hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2015-16, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 2. Briefly stating, the facts, leading to the present appeal, are that the assessee filed his return of income in ITR-4S on 26.03.2018, declaring an income

Ojas Shashikant Kulkarni, Margao vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 50/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji20 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavankumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 050/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Ojas Shashikant Kulkarni A-3/A-4, C.D. Neighbourhood, Swami Chinmayanand Marg, Gogoi, Salcete, Margao, Goa Pan : Dkzpk5732F . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Director Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr D.E. Robinson [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Smt Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 19/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/06/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; Assessee’S Captioned Appeal Impugns Din & Order 1072026383(1) Dt. 09/01/2025 Passed By Addl//Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-2, Jaipur [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Intimation Dt. 26/11/2021 Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act By Asstt. Direction Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2020-21 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Mr D.E. Robinson [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Smt Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 90

Nos.050/PAN/2025 AY: 2020-21 2. Without touching merits we have heard rival party’s submission on limited issue of ex-parte dismissal of first appeal owning to unsupported delay in instituting appeal before and subject to rule 18 of ITAT-Rules 1963 perused material placed on record and considered ... within 30 days therefrom in terms of s/s (2) to section 249 of the Act. Going by the limitation appellant was required to file first appeal u/s 246A of the Act by 30/12/2021, whereas the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) was filed on 20/11/2024. Apparently the said first appeal