← 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

Shah Hasan, Uttar Pradesh vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 798/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.798/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2012-13) Shah Hasan, 157, Mushtarak Miranpur, Jansath, Uttar Pradesh 251315 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Airph-7471-F बनाम Vs. National Faceless Appeal Center, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Delhi 110001 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 20/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against An Ex-Parte Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 19.10.2023, For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 408 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Seeking Condonation Of Delay In Filing Of Appeal Supported By An Affidavit. After Perusing The Application For Condonation Of Delay, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Present Appeal Is Un-Intentional & Was For The Reasons Stated In The Application

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

source of money deposited in his bank account. Hence, the AO made addition of Rs. 38,87,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act. In First appeal, the assessee failed to reply the notices issued by the CIT(A). The CITA), therefore, upheld findings of the AO and dismissed the appeal

ITO Ward - 28(4), New Delhi vs. Renu Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5155/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.5155/िद"ी/2019 (िन.व. 2015-16) Income Tax Officer, Ward 28(4), R. No. 1211, E-2 Block, 12Th Floor, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Civic Center, Jln Marg, Delhi 110002 बनाम Vs. Renu Gupta, R/O. B-393, New Friends Colony, New Delhi 110025 ....."ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Afupg-6910-N Assessee By : Shri Sanjeev Kapoor, Chartered Accountant Department By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 19.05.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenueis Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 05.03.2019, For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Revenue In Appeal Has Assailed The Order Of Cit(A) In Deleting Addition Of Rs.1,30,83,424/-Made By Assessing Officer (Ao) Disallowing Assessee’S Claim Of Exemption Of Long Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) U/S. 10(38) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Kapoor, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

identical reasons as is in the present case, the AO rejected assessee’s claim of exemption u/s. 10(38) of the Act. In First appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the addition. In further appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal following the decision rendered in the case of Tapas Kumar Mallick

Eveline International, Ludhiana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Ludhiana

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 942/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.942/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Everline International Dcit Circle-4 G.T.Road Aaykar Bhawan बनाम/ Vs. Ludhiana-141014 Rishi Nagar Ludhiana-141001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe-3412-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur [Cit(A)] Dated 09-07-2024 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S 143(1) On 30-09-2022 Adding Back Profit On Foreign Exchange Rate For Rs.8.87 Lacs As Reported By Tax Auditor In The Tax Audit Report. The Ld. Cit(A) Did Not Admit The Appeal For Want Of Condonation Of Delay Of 48 Days. The Ld. Ar Stated That The Adjustment Has Happened Due To Incorrect Reporting In Tax Audit

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154

view that the assessee had preferred rectification u/s 154 which resulted into delayed filing of first appeal. The delay was only for 48 days which could have been condoned. Nevertheless, we direct Ld. CIT(A) to admit the appeal of the assessee and verify the aforesaid fact as stated

Bajajsons Ltd., Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Central Circle III, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal stand dismissed

ITA 935/CHANDI/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 935/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Bajajsons Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ C-103 Phase V Focal Point Central Circle Iii Vs. Ludhiana 141010 Ludhiana-141001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb-6875-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sarabjit Garg (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23-04-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021- 22 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana [Cit(A)] Dated 27-06-2024 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issue By Cpc U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 04-03-2021 Disallowing Late Payment Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf / Esi For Rs.5.44 Lacs In Terms Of Sec.43B R.W.S. 36(1)(Va) As Well As Sec.2(24)(X). The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Same, Inter-Alia, By Relying Upon The Decision Of Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Checkmate

For Appellant: Sh. Sarabjit Garg (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 14BSection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Mumbai Tribunal do not render any assistance to the case of the assessee. 6. The assessee has been granted sufficient opportunity of hearing during first appeal as well as during second appeal. Therefore, the argument of lack of opportunity of hearing could also not be accepted. 7. In the result

Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Chandigarh -Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 582/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 582/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Chandigarh Housing Board Acit - Circle1(1) बनाम/ 8, Jan Marg, Sector 9 Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Chandigarh. Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaalc-0132-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. A K Jindal & Smt. Rattan Kaur (Cas) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23-04-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Certain Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) For Rs.24.92 Lacs, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. The Impugned Penalty Has Been Levied By Ld. Ao Vide Order Dated 31-03- 2019 Which Has Been Confirmed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre [Cit(A)] Vide Order Dated 19-03-2024. The Ld. Ar Advanced Arguments & Cited Various Case Laws Favoring The Case Of The Assessee. The Ld. Sr. Dr Also Advanced Arguments In Support Of Levy Of Penalty. Having Heard Rival

For Appellant: Sh. A K Jindal & Smt. Rattan Kaur (CAs) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

interest expenses, Income Tax expenditure, maintenance expenditure and loss on sale of fixed assets. Consequently, impugned penalty was initiated against the assessee. During first appeal, the assessee challenged disallowance of Income Tax expenditure and maintenance charges which was partly allowed and disallowance of Rs.80.66 Lacs was confirmed. Considering the same

Bharpur Singh, Mohali vs. ITO Ward 6(2) Mohali, Mohali

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 226/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.226/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Bharpur Singh Ito. Ward No. 6(2), House No. 430 Phase 2 बनाम/ Vs. Mohali. Mohali-160055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abzps-6480-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Ajay Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 12-01-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act On 28-12-2018. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition Of Cash

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

extent of Rs.57.19 Lacs was held to be from undisclosed sources and accordingly, added to the income of the assessee. 4. The first appeal was filed with a delay of 32 days which was not condoned by Ld. CIT(A). On merits also, the assessment was confirmed for want ... stated that the assessee received copy of the order and demand notice on 31-01-2019 and considering this date, the first appeal was filed within time. Be that as the case may be, we restore the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication