“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

Mustakeen Ahamad, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer -2(1)(2), Agra

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 149/AGR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 249Section 250

condone the delay. Said delay caused in filing this appeal is accordingly condoned. 3. Learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that the first appeal was filed on 10.05.2019 against the assessment order dated 13.12.2018, service of which was effected upon the assessee on 07.03.2019. However, due to Advocate ... negligence, not timely informing the assessee, caused the delay of 84 days in filing first appeal. Prayed to condone the delay in filing first appeal before the Id. CIT(Appeals) and direct the first appellate authority to decide the matter on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing

Praveen Kumar Katiyar, Farrukhabad vs. ACIT, Circle 4(2)(1), Farrukhabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 141/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 250Section 271A

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2017-18, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed first appeal of the assessee. 2. At the very outset, learned representative for the assessee has submitted that this appeal was filed on 13.03.2025 against the impugned

Praveen Kumar Mukhija, Agra vs. ITO, Ward 2(1)(5), Agra

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 122/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2012-13, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal, confirming the addition of Rs.22,13,095/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained bank deposits, treating it as income of the assessee from undisclosed/unexplained sources, vide

Ram Devi, Jhansi vs. ACIT Central Circle, Agra

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 170/AGR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

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

Section 144Section 250(6)Section 69

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), wherein the learned first appellate authority has dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte for non-prosecution, resulting in confirming the addition of Rs.5,35,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 69 of the Act on account of unexplained

Shree Amar Kshatriya Sabha Charitable Trust, Jammu vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- ( Exemptions), Jammu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 492/ASR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 492/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21

Section 11Section 119Section 12(1)(b)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 250

dates for filing of 10B audit report till 15th January, 2021 and ITR-7 , till 15th February, 2021 . 4. The matter carried in first appeal, before the Ld. JCIT (A), has been dismissed by observing that failure on the part of the assessee, to file the audit report in Form

M/S Sant Yogiraj Urban Credit Co-Op Society, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 203/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri D.P. Lohiya, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Anand Nagrale, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 250Section 253(5)

short, “AY”) 2018-19. 2. In the instant case, though the Ld. Commissioner declined to entertain the delay of 266 days in filing of first appeal before him, however still he touched upon the merits of the case, therefore following question emerge: 2 ITA.No.203/NAG/2025 “Whether the Ld. Commissioner

Paras Agro Processors, Chandrapur vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Nagpur

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

ITA 182/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Anand Nagrale

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 69A

assessment year 2018–19. Though, the assessee challenged the assessment order dated 2. 25/03/2021 passed u/sec. 143(3) of the Act by filing the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, in spite of affording three opportunities except filing adjournment application on dated 07/01/2025, eventually made no compliance and, therefore

Bee Gee Construction Co, Mohali vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Chandigarh

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 597/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.597/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Bee Gee Construction Co Dcit Sco-1 Neelkanth Shopping Plaza Circle 3 (1) बनाम/ Vs. Chandigarh Road Aaykar Bhawan Nac Zirakpur-140603 Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfb-1882-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.572/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit M/S Bee Gee Construction Co Circle 3 (1) बनाम/ Sco-1 Neelkanth Shopping Plaza Aaykar Bhawan Chandigarh Road Vs. Chandigarh Nac Zirakpur-140603 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfb-1882-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl.Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-05-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-06-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011- 12Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)]

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80A

vide order dated 24-01-2014 wherein Ld. AO made addition of Rs.6.11 Lacs to the revised income as filed by the assessee. The first appeal against this order stood disposed-off vide order dated 24-07-2018 allowing the appeal of the assessee. During the course of regular assessment ... case was reopened and another assessment was framed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 on 26-06-2015 wherein Ld. AO disallowed partner’s salary. The first appeal against the same stood dismissed vide order dated 24-05-2019. 7. However, the regular assessment has again been reopened on the allegation that

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh vs. Bee Gee Construction Co, Chandigarh

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 572/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80A

Mithalal Bhanwarlal Jain, Virar East vs. AO Ward 4(2), Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 993/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr.Dhyanesh M. Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 69A

return so filed, the balance of Rs.37,73,986/- was added to the total income under the head “business and profession”. In the first appeal, ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition so made and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

Deepti Mahajan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA 1163/Mum/2025

ITA 1163/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil A. BhattFor Respondent: ShriAnnavaram Kosuri SR.AR

Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

revised appeal memo duly signed by him and has prayed that the delay, if any, be condoned This may impliedly mean that the first appeal memo was not duly signed by the applicant. In such circumstance, when the appellate authority considered the fact that the revised appeal memo was submitted

Jagruti Co Op Hsg Soc Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward (197)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 372/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Jagruti Co Op Hsg Soc Ito Ward –(197)(6) Ltd. Cpc Bangaluru, L.J. Road Mahim, Vs. 560500. Mumbai-400016. Pan: Aaaat9842L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Pratik Jain, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.11.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Addl/Jcit (A) (In Short Ld. Addl/Joint Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2014-15. 2. In This Case, The Intimation/Order U/S. 143(1) Of The Act Was Issued On Dated 20.05.2015 By The Ito Ward-(197) (6) Mumbai, Whereby The Deduction Claimed By The Assessee U/S. 80(2)(D) Of The Act Amounting To Rs. 7,36,459/- Earned On Its Investment & Saving Bank Account Maintained With Saraswat Co-Operative Bank & The Nkgsb Co-Operative Bank Was Disallowed. The Assessee Against The Said Intimation Dated 20.05.2015 Filed A Rectification Application U/S. 154 Of The Act, However, No Order For Rectification Has Ever Been Passed By The Cpc. The Assessee On Realizing Its 2 M/S. Jagruti Co Op Hsg Soc Ltd. Mistake Challenged The Said Intimation U/S. 143(1) Dated 25.05.2025 By Filing First Appeal On Dated 12.06.2024 But With The Delay Of More Than 9 Years. The Ld. Addl/Joint Commissioner By Considering The Peculiar Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ultimately Declined To Entertain The Request For Condonation Of Delay & Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine Without Making Any Discussion On Merit Or On Any Other Aspect.

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Jain, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. D.R

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(d)

Assessee on realizing its 2 M/s. Jagruti Co op HSG SOC Ltd. mistake challenged the said intimation u/s. 143(1) dated 25.05.2025 by filing first appeal on dated 12.06.2024 but with the delay of more than 9 years. The Ld. Addl/Joint Commissioner by considering the peculiar facts and circumstances ... inordinate delay of nearly 8 years and ultimately condoned the 3 M/s. Jagruti Co op HSG SOC Ltd. delay in filing of the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) by observing and holding as under: “We heard both the parties and also peruse the relevant material based on record

M/S. Bagal Tax Law Services LLP, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 12(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the aforesaid terms

ITA 2711/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250

taxable income, the AO mentioned nothing which amounts to non-application of mind. Though the Assessee has challenged the said assessment order by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, in spite of giving four opportunities the Assessee made no compliance and therefore in the constrained circumstances

Arihant Aircon Service, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2709/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Ramachandran, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. D.R

Section 250Section 68

account of undisclosed income. 4. The Assessee being aggrieved though challenged the said addition before the Ld. Commissioner by filing first appeal, however as it appears from para no. 3.1 of the impugned order that despite giving opportunity to the Assessee on 07.02.2021 and thereafter on dated

Najeeb Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. Exem. Ward 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2701/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Najeeb Charitable Trust Exem. Ward2(1) A-28, Eversweet Apartment, Income Tax Appellant J.P.Road, Jogeshwari(West), Vs. Tribunal Building, Mumbai-400053. Pratishtha Bhawan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Pan: Aaatn0425G Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Dipesh Ruparelia, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31/05/2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/ Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2014-15. 2. At The Very Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 262 Days In Filing Of Instant Appeal, On Which The Assessee By Filing An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With Duly Sworn Affidavit Has Contended That Though The Assessee In Response To The Notices Dated 28.02.2024 & 12.04.2024 U/S. 250 Of The Act Issued By The Ld. Commissioner, Filed Its Written Submission, However, The Ld. Commissioner Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Being Heard Decided The Appeal Of The Assessee Vide Impugned Order Dated

For Appellant: Shri Dipesh Ruparelia, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. D.R

Section 250

fact from the impugned order that before the Ld. Commissioner as well, the Assessee was at fault and there was also delay in filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner and therefore no leniency is attracted in this particular case. 4. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar

Nirmal Pavanraj Burad, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office 19(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1099/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250

addition of Rs. 13,56,153/- on account of non-genuine purchases. Though the Assessee being aggrieved challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, in spite of affording various opportunities, eventually made no compliance and therefore in the 2 M/s. Nirmal Pavanraj Burad constrained

M/S. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1473/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआअसं.2627/िद"ी/2013(िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1695 और 1696/िद"ी/2016(िन.व. 2009-10 और 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain & Ms. Manisha Sharma, Advocates &For Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 80I

deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act, reallocated advertisement expenses, professional charges, directors meeting fee and directors travelling expenses to eligible projects. In First appeal, the CIT(A) upheld findings of the AO in allocating expenditure on pro rata basis in the ratio of sales. However, the CIT(A) granted