“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

Mohar Singh Gour, Bhopal vs. ITO NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is dismissed is non payment of advance

ITA 649/IND/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Jun 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 253

said assessment order is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. 2.4 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 first appeal of the assessee

Laxmi Industrial Premises Co-Op Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2692/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadake, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri P D Chougule, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 2(19)Section 250Section 70Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(d)

exempt u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the said deduction claim and therefore the Assessee preferred first appeal before the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner by challenging the aforesaid addition, who vide impugned order affirmed the same. Therefore, the Assessee has preferred this appeal

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Communications Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 5979/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 5979/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Dcit-1(3)(1), Mumbai V/S. Tata Communications Ltd. Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, बिाम Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mahatma Gandhi Road, Road, Churchgate, Fort, Mumbai Gpo, Maharashtra-400020 Maharashtra-400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacv2808C Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Joshi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Hemanshu Joshi

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi

Section 143(3)

neither give any direction to verify TDS nor any specific comments on this issue whether those were verified at the stage of first appeal proceedings.” 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that an assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 92CB(3) of the Act vide order dated

Mahendra Singh Naruka, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA no

ITA 205/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 204 & 205/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka B-536, J.D.A. Colony Malivya Nagar, Jaipur 302 017 अपीलार्थी / Appellant स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABUPN 1656 J बनाम Vs. The ACIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT -DR a

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

noted that the AO made an addition of Rs.13,50,000/- on account of unexplained investment the hands of the assessee. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order dismissing the appeal of the assessee in spite of providing as much as five opportunities. However

Mahendra Singh Naruka, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA no

ITA 204/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 204 & 205/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka B-536, J.D.A. Colony Malivya Nagar, Jaipur 302 017 अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम Vs. The ACIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABUPN 1656 J निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT -DR a

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

Aravali Buildhomes LLP, Jaipur vs. AO CPC, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1154/JPR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 80Section 80ASection 80I

claimed in ITR should be allowed. However the same has not been considered in their true perspective and sense. And denied the claim. In first appeal assessee filed the detailed WS and legal position with paper book. However the ld. CIT(A) by observing as under “ as the assessee

Parminder Singh S/O Inder Singh, Amloh vs. ITO Ward-1, Mandi Gobindgarh

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1210/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Mukhi (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144

sole grievance of the assessee is addition of cash deposit for Rs.11.32 Lacs. The assessee apparently withdrew first appeal but now has filed further appeal before us. The Ld. AR has stated that the assessee is very much interested to contest the impugned addition and accordingly, sought another opportunity

R.R.N.Sales Private Limited, Patiala vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Patiala

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1027/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1027/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S R. R. N. Sales Private Limited Ito C/O Shri Rishab Kapoor (Advocate) बनाम/ Ward 4, 11, Yadvindra Colony Patiala. Vs. The Mall, Patiala, Punjab 147001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aahcr-1516-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Rishab Kapoor (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02-06-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-06-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Central (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 07-08-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] On Best Judgment Basis U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 29-03-2022. From The Record, It Emerges That The Assessee Did Not File Its Return Of Income. To Examine The Source Of Cash Deposit, The Case Was Re-Opened. However, The Assessee Failed To Substantiate

For Appellant: Shri Rishab Kapoor (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144

However, the assessee failed to substantiate the cash deposit which resulted into an addition of Rs.102.24 Lacs in the hands of the assessee. During first appeal, the assessee stated that sales proceeds were deposited into the bank account. However, the addition was confirmed for want of acceptable evidences from

Deepakkumar Chandulal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 561/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year : 2017-18 Deepakkumar Chandulal Shah Ito, Ward-4(1)(1) 1, Maniratna Bungalows Vs Vejalpur B/H, Abhishree-1, Party Plot Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 380 058 Pan : Aclps 2478 P (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Rupesh R. Shah, Ar : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/06/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/06/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘B’ अहमदाबाद

Hemantkumar Gajanan Lad, Kalamboli vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Panvel

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2765/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: PendingITAT Pune04 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2765/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Hemantkumar Gajanan Lad, Vs. Ito, Ward-5, Panvel. 703, Krushidhan Chs, Sector 3, Kalamboli- 410218. Pan : Abjpl6243N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajinkya M. Vaishampayan Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing 02.06.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Objection To Condone The Delay, Therefore We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Ajinkya M. Vaishampayan

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 45(1)

have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides & perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find that that the first appeal order was passed ex-parte since the assessee remained absent due to circumstances beyond his control. We also find that Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal

Jindal Saw Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-13(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 504/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 43B

disallowance in terms of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules and worked out the total disallowance at INR 6,08,15,000/-. In first appeal, Ld.CIT(A) has deleted the same. 44. Before us, Ld. CIT DR for the Revenue supported the order of AO and submits that ... income derives from the export activity and therefore, reduced the claim of deduction u/s 10B by INR 4,74,84,925/-. In the first appeal, Ld.CIT(A) has allowed the same therefore, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal with regard to such disallowance. 48. Before

DCIT Circle-13(2), New Delhi vs. Jindal Saw Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 4760/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 43B

Jindal Saw Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-13(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 4693/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 43B

Shri Anantanath Alpasankhyatar Vividh Uddeshagal Souhard Sahakari Sangh Niy, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 6/PAN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 006/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Anantanath Alpasankhyatar Vivid Uddheshagal Souhardha Sahakari Sangh Niyamit [‘Saavusssn’] 1738, Anantnath Building, Jain Galli, Main Rd., Kannur Niyamit Kalloli, Kalloli, Belagavi. Pan : Aagts1962B . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Office, Ward-1, Gokak, Belagavi. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Sachin Nichal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Deshmukh Prakash [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 02/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/06/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Appeal Is Filed Against Din & Order 1070608483(1) Dt. 25/11/2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Penalty Dt. 23/03/2022 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act By The National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi [‘Ld. Nfeac’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2009-10 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Sachin Nichal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Deshmukh Prakash [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(4)

verification to the file of Ld. CIT(A), the status of which is unknown. 2.3 The assessee assailed the order of penalty in first appeal on the strength of relief granted to it in quantum appeal proceedings, however it could hardly inspire the Ld. NFAC who dismissed the appeal ... were initiated by the Revenue. However, turning blind eye to the former quantum adjudication, the Ld. NFeAC advanced & imposed the penalty which in first appeal confirmed by the Ld. NFAC. 9. Since, the Revenue is not appeal against the order the Ld. CIT(A) dt. 30/06/2018 passed in quantum appeal

Kirti Krishna Trademart Pvt. Ltd., Bharatpur vs. ITO WD 2, Bharatpur

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

ITA 1440/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 115BSection 253(5)Section 274Section 69A

made on account of cash deposits of Rs.16.00 lacs and clearing entries of Rs.8.80 lacs in the bank account of the assessee company. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO as the assessee failed to furnish any evidence or written submission to refute

Javed Akbar Sayyad, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 14(5), Pune

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

ITA 758/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.758/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Javed Akbar Sayyad, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(5), Pune. Flat No.09, Silver Nest, Yadgar City, Market Yard, Pune- 413102. Pan : Aucps0699B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Mrs. Indira Adakil Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.01.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeal

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Mrs. Indira Adakil

have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and 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

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Pandharpur, Income Tax Office Pandharpur vs. Yashoda Mahila Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha, Mangalwedha District Solapur

ITA 2741/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

determining total income at Rs.2,01,47,581/- as against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.Nil. 3. In first appeal after considering the submissions of the assessee co-operative society, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by relying on various decisions passed

Proxima Creations, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune-2, Pune

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

ITA 1041/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1041/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Proxima Creations, Vs. Pcit, Pune-2. Prop. -1, Business Centre, Level-1, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aakfp9790Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 08.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Pcit, Pune-2 [Ld. Pcit’] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Order Passed By The Ld. Principal Cit U/S 263 Is Not Tenable Either In Law Or In The Facts Of The Case As The Order Passed By The Ao U/S 144 Did Not Contain Any Error Which Was Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. Order Passed By The Additional Principal Cit U/S 263 Is Bad In Law Being Violative Of Principle Of Natural Justice. 3. The Ld. Principal Cit Has Erred In Holding That Two Different Sets Of Profit & Loss Accounts Were Prepared By The Assessee.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 263Section 45(4)

record. From the perusal of detailed written submissions, we find that all these additions are not acceptable to the assessee and therefore he furnished first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which is still pending. We also find that according to Ld. 6 PCIT, provisions of section

Parveen Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-15, Delhi

Appeal is disposed of by remitting the issue to the file of the Ld

ITA 5610/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 32Section 68

Assessing Officer in complete violation of principles of natural justice and without affording reasonable time to the assessee deserves to be deleted. In the first appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) did not take into consideration the facts as submitted by the assessee and did not even verify the facts from ... making compliance. Further the amount proposed to be added was not mentioned/indicated by the Ld.AO in the SCN. In the first appeal, the CIT(A) completely ignored these facts and confirmed the addition without applying his mind. III. Because on facts and in law and on grounds taken and basis

Mukesh Kumar, Ambala vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5-Ambala, Ambala

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 20/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.20/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Mukesh Kumar Ito बनाम/ H.No. 252, Luxmi Nagar Ward-5 Vs. Jandli, Ambala City-134003. Ambala.134003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Arhpk-6384-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vineet Krishan (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22-05-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-06-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)

failure to comply with hearing notice dated 08-08-2019 and levied impugned penalty of Rs.10,000/-. 3. During first appeal, the assessee drew attention to the fact that quantum appeal was restored back by Tribunal to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication by observing that hearing