“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

Piyush Sharma, Bhopal vs. Income Tax Officer 2(3), Bhopal

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 855/IND/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshipiyush Sharma, Income Tax Officer, बना B 03, Nikhil Bunglows, 2(3), म/ Phase Iii, Bhopal Vs. Near Vrindavan Garden, Hoshngabad, Bhopal (Pan: Aiupp4609A) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253

assessment order”. Page 4 of 12 Piyush Sharma ITA No. 855/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2010-11 2.9 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 appeal of the assessee on grounds

Nepal Singh Kushwah, Indore vs. CIT(A), NFAC

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 734/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshinepal Singh Kushwah, Cit(A), बना B-157, Lig Colony, Nfac, म/ Indore Delhi Vs. (Pan: Akupk8255H) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 147Section 153ASection 246ASection 250Section 253

which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned Assessment order”. 2.2 That 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 1st appeal of the assessee on grounds specified

Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidut Vitaran Company Limited, Bhopal vs. The DCIT- 2-(1), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 551/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

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

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(viia)

Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 28.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 30.04.2025 od’1/O RDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 03.11.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of penalty-order dated ... penalty of Rs. 18,70,00,000/- qua the addition/disallowance of Rs. 57,52,00,000/-. Aggrieved by penalty-order, the assessee filed first-appeal to Page 2 of 4 Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidut Vitaran Company Limited, ITA No. 551/Ind/2023

M/S Co-Operative Cane Development Union Gola, Lakhimpur Kheri vs. Income Tax Officer Range-3(4), Lakhimpur Kheri-1

ITA 15/LKW/2023[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Apr 2025

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl CIT DR

Section 80P

upon the receipt of outstanding demand intimation from the jurisdictional AO that the assessee society enquired from its counsel about the pendency of the first appeal and was informed by the counsel that the order of the Hon’ble CIT(A), NFAC had been passed on 24.11.2021 and received

M/S Co-Operative Cane Development Union Ltd, Lakhimpur Kheri vs. Income Tax Officer -1, Range-3(4), Lakhimpur Kheri

ITA 37/LKW/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl CIT DR

Section 80P

M/S Co-Operative Cane Development Union Ltd., Lakhimpur-Kheri vs. Income Tax Officer-I, Lakhimpur -Kheri

ITA 394/LKW/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 80P

upon the receipt of outstanding demand intimation from the jurisdictional AO that the assessee society enquired from its counsel about the pendency of the first appeal and was informed by the counsel that the order of the Hon'ble CIT(A), NFAC had been passed on 24.11.2021 and received

Versibhai Thakor, Patan vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Patan

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1509/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Astha Maniar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 69A

have gone through the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and with a sense of deep disappointment, we find that the order passed in first appeal is sheer waste of assesses right to appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The reason being that the order of the Ld.CIT(A), other

Dhairyashil Shridhar Gaud, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 9(1), Pune

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

ITA 9/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Dhairyashil Shridhar Gaud Ito, Ward 9(1), Pune S.No.22, Akashraj Society, Flat No.101, Vs. Near Reliance Mart, Ravet, Pune – 412101 Pan: Amwpg9505C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri N C Lahoti Department By : Smt. Shraddha Nichal Date Of Hearing : 30-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri N C LahotiFor Respondent: Smt. Shraddha Nichal

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148A

consultant. Due to high pitch demand and assessee’s lack of knowledge of the Income Tax Act, he could not file his first appeal within time. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC rejected the appeal on the ground that no evidence was produced for the delay. He submitted

Shree Velu Builders Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 560/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.560/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Velu Builders Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Block No. 2, Alaka Palazu, 4/219, Income Tax, Poonamallee High Road, Kattupakkam, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 056. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacs6653C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Girish Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Raised 12 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Assessment Order Exparte Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148

passed ex-parte in view of the notices were sent to the old address while I further state that the hearing notices in the First Appeal Proceedings were sent to the dormant email id. I state that the reason for ex-parte order for both the authorities below was beyond

Sri Kannan Damodaran, L/R of S. Damodaran, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 3258/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.3257 & 3258/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran (Advocate) –

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 144Section 153ASection 153CSection 69

assessment was framed. Similar assessment was framed for AY 2012-13. Aggrieved, the assessee challenged the assessment so framed by Ld. AO in first appeal. Appellate Proceedings 4.1 The Ld. CIT(A) noted that warrant of authorisation was issued in the name of Shri D. Ramgopal to search the premises

Sri Kannan Damodaran, L/R. of S. Damodaran, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 3257/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran (Advocate) –

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 144Section 153ASection 153CSection 69

Gobichettipalayam Rev Div Vao & Va Co-Op Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., Erode vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Erode

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 3218/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3217/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3218/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Gobichettipalayam Income Tax Officer Rev Dev Vao & Va T&C Ward 2(1) बनाम/ Society Ltd. Erode 72, North Park Street Vs. Gobichettipalayam Taluk, Erode – 638452 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacag-0315-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Bhupendran (Advocate) – Ld. Ar " थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam (Jcit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-04-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2020- 21 & 2021-22 Have Identical Facts. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2020-21 Which Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Ld. Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Vishakhapatnam [Cit(A)] On 25-11-2021. The Sole Issue That Arises In The Appeal Is Claim Of Deduction

For Appellant: Shri S. Bhupendran (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 22Section 5Section 57Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

claimed by the assessee u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) was already allowed by CPC and the same was not subject matter of assessee’s first appeal. Therefore, no such directions could have been issued by Ld. CIT(A) qua deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). These directions stand reversed

Gobichettipalayam Rev Div Vao & Va Co-Op Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., Erode vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Erode

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 3217/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri S. Bhupendran (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 22Section 5Section 57Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

The Pavagada Souharda Credit Co-Operative Limtied, Kolor vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kolar

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

ITA 1960/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 8o

facilities to its members, thus, it is lawfully eligible for claim of deduction under section 8oP of the Act. 6. Grounds on dismissal of first appeal on delay: a. The learned Addl.CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal by not condoning the delay in filing the first appeal

B N Industries, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Circle 41(4)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1303/MUM/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon’Bleb.N. Industries Dcit – Circle – 41(4)(1) Kautilyabhavan, G-Block 52/53, Samita Complex Bkc, Bandrakurla Complex Andheri Kurla Road Vs Bandra (East) – 400051 Sakinaka, Andheri (East) -400072 Maharashtra Maharashtra Pan: Aabfb8956B (Appellant) (Respondent ) Assessee Represented By : Shri Himanshu Gandhica Department Represented By : Shri Vijay Kr. G. Subramanyam, Sr.Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement Of Order : 30.04.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh;

Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

some of the family members separated from the firm, so due to family dispute delay of 16 days occurred in taking decision for filing first appeal. The ld AR of the assessee prayed that delay in filing appeal may be condoned and the matter may be decided on merit

Milagro Ceremica Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 15(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1033/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Parth Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 156

appeal on merit.” 4.1. While adjudicating on the appeal, ld. CIT(A) noted that there is a delay of 100 days in filing the first appeal. He also noted that assessee has sought condonation of delay in filing the said appeal by citing disruptions caused by pandemic of covid ... above, if we examine the facts then it would reveal that there is a delay of 100 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

Jaimin S Patel, Bharuch vs. ACIT, Circle 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6886/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Jaimin S. Patel Acit – Circle – 3(1)(1) Room No. 607, 6Th Floor 135 Patel Faliyu, Itkala Valid Bharuch Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Gujarat – 393135 Vs Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan. Aiopp 2429 E Maharashtra Appellant (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Rasesh Shah Fca & Shri Brijesh Vyas Department Represented By : Ms. Pradnya Gholap, Sr. Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 17.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement Of Order : 30.04.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh;

Section 115BSection 144Section 254(1)Section 68

Learned Authorised Representative (Ld.AR) of the assessee fairly submitted that assessment order under section 144 of the Act was passed on 29.06.2019 and first appeal before Ld.CIT(A) was filed on 18.11.2021, thus there was a delay of 225 days in filing said appeal. The Ld. AR of the assessee

Marwadi Yuva Nagari Sahkari Patsanstha Limited, Kalyan vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kalyan

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

ITA 6541/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri N.A Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234ASection 270ASection 69ASection 80P

objecting on the plea of the Ld. Counsel fairly submitted that since nothing has been furnished at the stage of assessment as well as first appeal, the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer which would avoid multiplicity of proceedings before

Vineet Kumar Rituraj Pawar, Aligarh vs. ITO., Ward-4(1)(3), Aligarh

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 124/AGR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

undisclosed and unexplained cash and Rs.2675/- as undisclosed salary income. 4. Assessee could not succeed in first appeal where ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the aforesaid additions and dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 5. Assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal on the ground that the revenue authorities were unjust

ACIT Circle 2(1), Gwalior vs. Govind P Garg, Morena

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 76/AGR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 132(1)Section 250

remand report from the Assessing Officer and after finding that there was no adverse report submitted by the Assessing Officer, allowed assessee’s first appeal and deleted aforesaid additions. 4. Aggrieved by the impugned order, Revenue has filed this appeal on the following grounds : “1. Whether on the facts