← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Prabha Farms Private Limited, Aurangabad

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

ITA 1748/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1748/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1, Vs. Prabha Farms Private Aurangabad. Limited, Akash, Paithan Road, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Aaccp3782D Appellant Respondent C. O. No.07/Pun/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1748/Pun/2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Prabha Farms Private Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Limited, Aurangabad. Akash, Paithan Road, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Aaccp3782D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri N. R. Agrawal Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri N. R. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

total income of Rs.3,57,10,580/- and simultaneously initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) IT Act. The assessee preferred first appeal against quantum addition and when it was dismissed assessee preferred second appeal before the Tribunal. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty ... No.07/PUN/2025 Rs.77,24,199/-. Assessee preferred first appeal against imposition of penalty which was allowed by Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 22.03.2017 and the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act was deleted. The Revenue filed second appeal before the Tribunal against the deletion of penalty. Vide

Ketan Harshadrai Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 1(2)(5), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5449/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh&Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Ketanharshadrai Mehta Ito,Ward-1(2)(5), 67/2, Baliramganpatmahatre Bldg. Vs Kalyanmohan Plaza, Kongaon, Bhiwandi, Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada, Maharashtra-421311. Kalyan(W). [Pan No. Aajpm 9528 L Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 68

merit of the case, the ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that during the assessment as well as at the time of first appeal, the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of creditors as has been clearly held by ld. CIT(A). 8. In short rejoinder submission

Superior Metal Overseas, Moradabad vs. Assessment Unit, Assessment Uni of Income Tax Department Delhi

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

ITA 738/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Unit Superior Metal Overseas, Mohalla Dehriya, Rahat Vs. Molai Gali, Near Falahe Daren School, Moradabad Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Acbfs2710A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Tariq Nufuir, Adv. & Shri Adil Mohmood, Ca Department By Shri Dayainder Singh Sindhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/05/2025

Section 250

Under these circumstances and the interest of justice, we find that the reason given by the assessee for delay in filing in first appeal has sufficient cause, thus, we condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). As the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided

Vivek Kaul, New Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeal), Udaipur

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

ITA 668/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalcit(A), Mr. Vivek Kaul, Udaipur. Mercantile House-15, Vs. Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi-110001. Pan-Aiepk8894Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/05/2025

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 90Section 90(1)Section 91

return u/s 139(1) of the act was 31.08.2019, therefore, the tax credit was not allowed to the assessee by the CPC. In first appeal, Ld. Addl. JCIT, Udaipur has confirmed the order of CPC, therefore, the assessee is in appeal before us. Vivek Kaul vs. CIT(A) 4. During

Suman Dahiya, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle, Rohtak

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

ITA 3736/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sunil Kuamar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: S/Shri Shantu Jain & Prateek Kumar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Rs.53,67,747/-. 2 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 19.12.2019, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal, confirming the aforesaid additions. 4. Assessee has raised following grounds in this second appeal. “1. That the action taken

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-25(1), New Delhi vs. Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 24/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 14ASection 250

forward looses, the total income was assessed at Rs.26,07,24,708/-,and the book profit was assessed at Rs.15,10,54,978/-. In First appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed appeal of the assessee. Therefore, the Revenue is in appeal against the additions/disallowances deleted ... guidelines for NBFC's companies and, therefore, it is not an allowable expenditure u/s. 36(1)(viiia) of the Act. In First appeal, ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee by observing that the provisions made by the assessee in respective assessment years towards bad and doubtful

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-25(1), New Delhi, Delhi vs. Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 23/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 14ASection 250

forward looses, the total income was assessed at Rs.26,07,24,708/-,and the book profit was assessed at Rs.15,10,54,978/-. In First appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed appeal of the assessee. Therefore, the Revenue is in appeal against the additions/disallowances deleted ... guidelines for NBFC's companies and, therefore, it is not an allowable expenditure u/s. 36(1)(viiia) of the Act. In First appeal, ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee by observing that the provisions made by the assessee in respective assessment years towards bad and doubtful

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-25(1), New Delhi vs. Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 22/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 14ASection 250

forward looses, the total income was assessed at Rs.26,07,24,708/-,and the book profit was assessed at Rs.15,10,54,978/-. In First appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed appeal of the assessee. Therefore, the Revenue is in appeal against the additions/disallowances deleted ... guidelines for NBFC's companies and, therefore, it is not an allowable expenditure u/s. 36(1)(viiia) of the Act. In First appeal, ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee by observing that the provisions made by the assessee in respective assessment years towards bad and doubtful

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Chinars, Near Govt. Silk Factory, Rajbagh, Srinagar vs. Jammu and Kashmir Power Development Corporation Ltd., Srinagar, Kashmir

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed being

ITA 386/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Dalip K Kaul, C. A
Section 115JSection 135Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 37(2)

hence the book profits needs to be increased by the said amount for calculation of MAT profits. 8. The matter was carried in first appeal and the Ld CIT (A), deleted the addition by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Srinagar, Kashmir vs. Jammu and Kashmir Power Development Corporation Ltd., Srinagar, Kashmir

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed being

ITA 385/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Dalip K Kaul, C. A
Section 115JSection 135Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 37(2)

hence the book profits needs to be increased by the said amount for calculation of MAT profits. 8. The matter was carried in first appeal and the Ld CIT (A), deleted the addition by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- Srinagar, Rajbagh Sringar vs. Jammu and Kashmir Power Development Corporation Ltd., Srinagar, Kashmir

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed being

ITA 364/ASR/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 May 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Dalip K Kaul, C. A
Section 115JSection 135Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 37(2)

hence the book profits needs to be increased by the said amount for calculation of MAT profits. 8. The matter was carried in first appeal and the Ld CIT (A), deleted the addition by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

Ashwini Shrivastava, Bhopal vs. ITO-2(5), Bhopal

In the result “impugned order” is set aside as and by way

ITA 475/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiashwani Shrivastava, Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ 169 Crystle Ideal City, 2(5), Vs. Awadhpuri, Bhopal Bhopal (Pan: Aemps0026G) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.05.2025

Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 253

dated 28.12.2017 which is hereinafter referred to as “impugned assessment order”. 2.3 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 1st appeal of the assessee on the grounds

Indrodeep Banerjee, Lucknow vs. ITO-1(2), Lucknow-New

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

ITA 679/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow15 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraindrodeep Banerjee V. Income Tax Officer-1(2) B-2045, Indira Nagar, Lucknow-New-226001. Lucknow-226016. Pan:Akrpb7109E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Samrat Chandra, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Copy of replies filed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings on various dates 2 Copy of replies filed by assessee during the First Appeal Proceedings 3. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee relied on the aforesaid paper book and the Ld. Departmental Representative

Stella Maris Co Operative Housing Society, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22 3 6, Piramal Chamders Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.1962/MUM/2025 stands allowed, whereas

ITA 1963/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri. Ajay Wadke, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Smitha V. Nair (CIT DR)
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

been disallowed. 3. The Assessee therefore being aggrieved challenged, the said intimation/order of the Ld. CPC, by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (appeals), however, with a delay of 3699 days and therefore Ld. ADDL. Commissioner dismissed the appeal filed by the Assessee in limine and for want

Stella Maris Co Operative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 22 3 6, Piramal Chambers

In the result, ITA No.1962/MUM/2025 stands allowed, whereas

ITA 1962/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri. Ajay Wadke, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Smitha V. Nair (CIT DR)
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

been disallowed. 3. The Assessee therefore being aggrieved challenged, the said intimation/order of the Ld. CPC, by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (appeals), however, with a delay of 3699 days and therefore Ld. ADDL. Commissioner dismissed the appeal filed by the Assessee in limine and for want

Mulund Samata Co-Op Hsg Soc Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-41(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6432/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Ashutosh Patare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249Section 3Section 5Section 80P(2)(d)

above, if we examine the facts then it would reveal that there is a delay of 206 days in filing of the first appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). In its submissions as considered in the order of ld. CIT(A), assessee has explained the reasons which

Rajesh Baghela, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer-2(4), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 901/IND/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 May 2025AY 2011-2012

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

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 13.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 14.05.2025 amet /ORDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 25.11.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated ... accounts and (ii) Income of Rs. 10,490/- on account of interest earned by assessee from bank accounts. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal but could not make compliances of notices issued by CIT(A). The CIT(A) therefore dismissed assessee’s appeal vide Para

Brajendra Sharma, Barwani vs. Income Tax Officer, Sendhwa

ITA 762/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 115BSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253

gone unexplained. Consequently aforesaid “impugned assessment order” was passed by Ld. A.O. 2.4 The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “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

Atul Bansal, Indore vs. Additiona, Join, Deputy, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Officer NFAC Delhi, National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 704/IND/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 May 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 44ASection 69A

Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 13.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 14.05.2025 amet /ORDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 26.07.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated ... Ultimately, the AO made addition of Rs. 14,00,000/- u/s 69A treating the deposit as unexplained money. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal but could not make compliances of notices issued by CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed assessee’s appeal in /imine, vide Para

Scj Plastics Private Limited, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6108/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: S/Shri Gagan Kumar & Gagan Deep, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 26.12.2018, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who partly allowed assessee’s first appeal, confirming the addition of Rs.4,07,43,366/-, however directed 2 Assessing Officer to verify the difference amount as furnished by the assessee company with respect