← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Trichy vs. Maharaja Silks, Thiruvarur

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2506/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2506/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit M/S Maharaja Silks बनाम/ Central Circle -2, 117/2, Thanjai Salai, Vs. Trichy. Vijayapuram, Thiruvarur-610 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abffm-0968-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam (Jcit) – Ld. Sr. Dr " थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. R. Sivaraman (Advocate) – Ld. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-05-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Department For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai [Cit(A)] Dated 29.07.2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 260 Of The Act On 29.09.2022. The Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are As Under: - 1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Erroneous On Facts Of The Case & In Law. 2. The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Not Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.1,40,60,546/- Made On Account Of Undisclosed Business Profit; 2.1 The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Observing That The Ao Had Wrongly Compared Unaudited P&L Account With The Audited P&L Account Without Appreciating The Statutory Position That The Survey

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. R. Sivaraman (Advocate) – Ld. AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69C

Rs.140.60 Lacs. Such huge reduction had no basis. Accordingly, the amount of Rs.140.06 Lacs was treated as undisclosed business profits. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred first appeal and assailed the impugned addition by way of elaborate written submissions which have been extracted in the impugned order