← 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

Jpmc Hospital and Path Lab, Moradabad vs. ACIT Central Circle, Moradabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2906/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Section 153Section 153ASection 153D

invalid approval u/s153D dated 07.04.2021 (as supplied with RTI reply dated 08.07.2024 by office of Ld AO) and therefore impugned asst order and first appeal order may please quashed for total want of valid /requisite approval us 153D of 1961 Act" This hon'ble ITAT as is well settled

Shri Vakeel Singh S/O.Sh.Chhota Singh, Mansa vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mansa

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

ITA 634/ASR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Sh. J. K. Gupta, Adv
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 249(3)Section 250

circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred in not condoning the delay of 24 days in filing first appeal as the assessee is a agriculturist and have no knowledge of income tax law which is complex in nature. The appeal was filed through

Sainath Builders and Developers, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(2)(5), Mumbai

ITA 354/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil R. TalrejaFor Respondent: Shri
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 271F

Year 2016-2017. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. The FAA did not adjudicated the grounds pleaded at all, in first appeal. Assessment Year 2016-2017 2. The FAA without pointing out any defect or deficiency in the grounds raised during the course of first appeal

Bajrangllal Mangalchand Sharma, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 42(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6837/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 249(2)Section 254(1)Section 50CSection 69A

assessee submits that in the statement of fact mentioned in the Form 35, the assessee has explained the fact that while filing first appeal on 23.06.2023, the Chartered Accountant (CA) of the assessee inadvertently filed blank appeal. On verification of portal it was noticed that all the column ... belatedly The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that he has already place on record copy of screenshot of ITBA portal showing of filing first appeal in time, wherein all details were left blank. Copy of acknowledgement and Form-35 is filed at page 11 to 17 of paper book

Beautiful Electronics and Computers Systems Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 3576/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250

accordingly made the addition of the said amount. 3. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the said addition/disallowance by filing first appeal before the ld. Commissioner, however, in spite of affording various opportunities by the ld. Commissioner, the assessee made no compliance. Therefore, in the constrained circumstances, the ld. Commissioner dismissed

Chitra Uttam Khare, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 12(1), Pune

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

ITA 236/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.236/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Chitra Uttam Khare, Vs. Ito, Ward-12(1), Pune. 691, Saraswati Vilas Hospital, Laxmi Road, Opp. Shiva Sadan, Narayan Peth, Pune- 411030. Pan : Acdpk5474D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. S. Puranik Revenue By : Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-6, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Erred In Confirming Income Processed U/S 143(1) At Rs. 15,03,390/- Against The Returned Income Of Rs. 5,85,800/-

For Appellant: Shri S. S. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 143(1)Section 154

before CPC on 18.12.2021. Since the assessee did not received any rectification order within 30 days, he also preferred first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 14.01.2022. Fortunately, CPC accepted the mistake and rectified the intimation vide order dated 12.04.2022 and accepted the income returned by the assessee. However

Sitangshu Das, South Twenty Four Parganas vs. ITO, Ward - 26(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2656/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 250Section 40

income was also added. Further, addition on account of unexplained unsecured loans/advances etc. was also made. Penalty proceedings were also initiated. 4. In the first appeal, the Ld. Addl./Joint CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of the expenses for non-deduction of TDS from the payment made to labourers, addition

Nemchand J Gala, Kalbadevi vs. DCIT-4(3)(1), Aaykar Bhavan

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are allowed for statistical purposes, in the same terms

ITA 633/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Hari S.Raheja, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250

made by the Assessing Officer (AO). Mr. Nemchand J Gala 4. The Assessee, being aggrieved, though challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, in spite of sending six notices in all for the dates of hearing, the Assessee eventually made no reply and therefore

Nemchand J Gala, Kalbadevi vs. DCIT-4(3)(1), Aaykar Bhavan

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are allowed for statistical purposes, in the same terms

ITA 632/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Hari S.Raheja, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250

made by the Assessing Officer (AO). Mr. Nemchand J Gala 4. The Assessee, being aggrieved, though challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, in spite of sending six notices in all for the dates of hearing, the Assessee eventually made no reply and therefore

Sunil Kumar Jain, Hisar vs. ITO Ward - 04, Hisar

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 5138/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: 2. not allowing set off of long
Section 143(3)Section 250

being the Page | 1 ITA No.5138/Del/2019 adventure in the nature of trade. Therefore, he treated the same as regular income and assessed accordingly. In first appeal, Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in terms of impugned order dated 18.04.2019 therefore, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal ... same part of the plots of land sold, the assessee declared LTCG however, the AO treated the same as business income. 6. In first appeal, after considering the facts, Ld.CIT(A) in its order at page 12 to 16 has discussed this issue at length and decided against the assessee

Sh. Chattar Singh Tomar, Paonta Sahib vs. ITO, Nahan

ITA 53/CHANDI/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 May 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 51/Chandi/2008 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 52/Chandi/2008 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 53/Chandi/2008 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Shri Chattar Singh Tomar Ito बनाम/ Vs. (Rep. By Lh Shri Raghubir Singh) Nahan Vpo Kamrao, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, Hp "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abapt-2391-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ajay Dhiman (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Rohit Sharma (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals Are Recalled Matters. From The Case Records, It Emerges That The Assessee’S Appeals For Assessment Years (Ay) 1999-2000 To 2004-05 Were Disposed-Off By Tribunal Vide Ita Nos.48 To 53/Chandi/2008 Common Order Dated 07-07-2008. The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Dhiman (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 153A

cultivated land. Accordingly, 3/4th of this income was treated as income from other sources. The same worked out to be Rs.1.16 Lacs. During first appeal, the assessee did not file any documentary evidences to substantiate the same. Accordingly the estimation of Ld. AO was confirmed. Aggrieved, the assessee ... confronted with the same but assessee could not explain the same. Accordingly, Ld. AO made addition of Rs.0.31 Lacs for AY 2002-03. During first appeal the assessee stated that the addition was merely on third party documents without chance to the assessee to confront the other party. However

Sh. Chattar Singh Tomar, Paonta Sahib vs. ITO, Nahan

ITA 52/CHANDI/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 51/Chandi/2008 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 52/Chandi/2008 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 53/Chandi/2008 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Shri Chattar Singh Tomar Ito बनाम/ Vs. (Rep. By Lh Shri Raghubir Singh) Nahan Vpo Kamrao, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, Hp "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abapt-2391-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ajay Dhiman (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Rohit Sharma (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals Are Recalled Matters. From The Case Records, It Emerges That The Assessee’S Appeals For Assessment Years (Ay) 1999-2000 To 2004-05 Were Disposed-Off By Tribunal Vide Ita Nos.48 To 53/Chandi/2008 Common Order Dated 07-07-2008. The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Dhiman (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 153A

cultivated land. Accordingly, 3/4th of this income was treated as income from other sources. The same worked out to be Rs.1.16 Lacs. During first appeal, the assessee did not file any documentary evidences to substantiate the same. Accordingly the estimation of Ld. AO was confirmed. Aggrieved, the assessee ... confronted with the same but assessee could not explain the same. Accordingly, Ld. AO made addition of Rs.0.31 Lacs for AY 2002-03. During first appeal the assessee stated that the addition was merely on third party documents without chance to the assessee to confront the other party. However

Sh. Chattar Singh Tomar, Paonta Sahib vs. ITO, Nahan

ITA 51/CHANDI/2008[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 May 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 51/Chandi/2008 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 52/Chandi/2008 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 53/Chandi/2008 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Shri Chattar Singh Tomar Ito बनाम/ Vs. (Rep. By Lh Shri Raghubir Singh) Nahan Vpo Kamrao, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, Hp "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abapt-2391-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ajay Dhiman (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Rohit Sharma (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals Are Recalled Matters. From The Case Records, It Emerges That The Assessee’S Appeals For Assessment Years (Ay) 1999-2000 To 2004-05 Were Disposed-Off By Tribunal Vide Ita Nos.48 To 53/Chandi/2008 Common Order Dated 07-07-2008. The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Dhiman (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 153A

cultivated land. Accordingly, 3/4th of this income was treated as income from other sources. The same worked out to be Rs.1.16 Lacs. During first appeal, the assessee did not file any documentary evidences to substantiate the same. Accordingly the estimation of Ld. AO was confirmed. Aggrieved, the assessee ... confronted with the same but assessee could not explain the same. Accordingly, Ld. AO made addition of Rs.0.31 Lacs for AY 2002-03. During first appeal the assessee stated that the addition was merely on third party documents without chance to the assessee to confront the other party. However

Vikas Bhagoji Shinde, Pimpri Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 8(4) Akurdi, Nigdi Pradhikaran

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

ITA 1879/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1879/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vikas Bhagoji Shinde, Vs. Ito, Ward-8(4), Akurdi. 517/2496, Akshay Hsg Society, Sant Tukaram Nagar, Pimpri- 411018. Pan : Adyps0967P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bharat Shah Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai : Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.08.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) The Authorities Below Erred In Making & Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 3050000 U/S 56(Vii)(B) Of The Income Tax Act When The Amount Paid To The Seller As Well As To Others For Cancellation Of Deeds Of This Property Is More Than The Market Valuation. The Addition Made On This Account Be Deleted & Just & Proper Relief Be Granted To The Assessee In This Respect.

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Shah
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56

another addition of Rs.2,30,29,600/- as short term capital gain on so-called sale of impugned property. 4 4. In first appeal after considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, however the relief of Rs.1,00,000/- only

Smt. Nishita Nandish, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1616/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common, therefore, for the sake of brevity of the cae, we are taking first appeal in ITA No.1614/Bang/2024 for Assessment Year 2015-16. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a survey under section 133Afo

Smt. Nishita Nandish, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1615/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common, therefore, for the sake of brevity of the cae, we are taking first appeal in ITA No.1614/Bang/2024 for Assessment Year 2015-16. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a survey under section 133Afo

Smt. Nishita Nandish, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1614/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common, therefore, for the sake of brevity of the cae, we are taking first appeal in ITA No.1614/Bang/2024 for Assessment Year 2015-16. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a survey under section 133Afo

Mohd Hasnain Mohd Ilyas Ansari, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 26(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 583/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Khakhkhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 68Section 69A

pending for quite a long time, upon enquiry on the IT e-filing portal through his Chartered Accountant, assessee came to know that his first appeal was dismissed vide order dated 22.09.2023 which was an ex parte order. Against this first appellate order, assessee took appropriate action and filed

Lintas Employees Hobbies and Craft Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1802/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 10(15)Section 10(35)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

exempt u/s 10(15) of the Act. 4. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said additions before the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner by filing first appeal, however, with the delay of 979 days in filing of the same. As observed above, the CPC/AO has passed the order/intimation on dated ... affidavit appears to be genuine, bonafide and unintentional and therefore, for substantial justice, we are inclined to condone the delay occurred in filing of first appeal before the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner. Thus, the delay is condoned. 7. Coming to the merits of the case, we observe that the Assessee

Lintas Employees Hobbies and Craft Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1801/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Priya Gada, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 10(15)Section 10(35)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

exempt u/s 10(15) of the Act. 4. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said additions before the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner by filing first appeal, however, with the delay of 979 days in filing of the same. As observed above, the CPC/AO has passed the order/intimation on dated ... affidavit appears to be genuine, bonafide and unintentional and therefore, for substantial justice, we are inclined to condone the delay occurred in filing of first appeal before the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner. Thus, the delay is condoned. 7. Coming to the merits of the case, we observe that the Assessee