“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

Vikas Kumar, Bettiah vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 661/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) But He Requested That The Same May Be Remanded Back To The File Of Ld. Cit(A) For Adjudication Since, Thereafter, The Situation Had Changed & The Assessee Was Interested In

Section 250

considered the rival submissions and gone through the record. The Ld. AR was queried about the specific intention to withdraw the appeal at the first appeal stage and the change of opinion thereafter. The Ld. AR mentioned that thereafter certain situation changed and the assessee was now interested in pursuing ... find that this is very unusual and the assessee does not have the liberty to change his mind at second appeal stage when at first appeal stage he had expressed a written intention to withdraw the appeal. We find that this ground for pursuing the matter, as an afterthought

Sanjay Kumar Bomb Legal Heir of Late Shri Ajit Kumar Bomb, Neemuch vs. Income Tax Officer Neemuch, Neemuch

Appeal is disposed off in effective manner and not as

ITA 907/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisanjay Kumar Bombl/H Of Income Tax Officer, बना Late Ajit Kumar Bomb, Neemuch म/ 18, Bunglow No.41, Vs. Bhuteshwar Mandir Road, Neemuch (Pan: Aappb8200L) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. 2.3 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 appeal of the assessee. 2.4 That the assessee

Anita Kesari, Indore vs. Assessment Unit, Bpl-W-(51)-(1), Indore

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 902/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshianita Kesari, Income Tax Officer बना 101, Ankur Ally Apartment, 5(2), म/ Sch.No.54, Bhopal Vs. Satya Sai Circle, Indore (Pan: Atopk2918A) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri Mahendra Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 144Section 147Section 246ASection 250Section 253

petrol pump but later on business was closed due to loss. 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 appeal of the assessee on grounds specified

Praveen Agrawal, Indore vs. DCIT 4(1) Indore, Indore

ITA 651/IND/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Apr 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Paresh M Joshi & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 57Section 68

which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. 2.3 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 the grounds

M/S. Bharat Heavy Electrical Employees Cooperative Ltd., Bhopal vs. ITO-5(2), Bhopal

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 643/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshibharat Heavy Electrical Income Tax Officer बना Employees Cooperative Ltd, 5(2), म/ Hostel No.1, Bhopal Vs. Piplani, Bhopal (Pan: Aaatb3348J) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By S/Shri Yash Kekreja & H. Chimnani, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 40A(3)Section 80P(2)(C)

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 appeal of the assessee. 2.3 That the assessee

Ritika Jain, Thane vs. ITO(It Tp), Bhopal, Aaykar Bhavan

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 632/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiritika Jain, Cit (Appeals), बना A-504, Laxmi Residency Chs Nfac, म/ Ltd, Delhi Vs. Opposite Datta Mandir Check Naka, Wagle Estate, Thane

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

Additions were made u/s 69 of the Act. 2.19 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 held as under:- “I have gone through above reply of appellant. The appellant

Gulabsingh Raghuwanshi HUF, Indore vs. Income Tax Office 2(5), Indore

ITA 528/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT

Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Betul vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delho

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed for statistical purpose

ITA 501/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshisandeep Kumar Yadav, Nfac, बना Palsyapalsya, Delhi म/ Palsya, Vs. The. Bhainsdehi, Betul (Pan: Afnpy3295D) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 271(1)(b)

dated 30.03.2022 which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order.” 2.11 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 as time barred

Dev Plast Industries, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer(Ward-1), Jaipur

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

ITA 321/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dileep Shivpuri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT -DR a

Section 250Section 71

total income declared by the assessee and this disallowance of inter-head adjustment of losses is contrary to the provisions of the Act. In first appeal, the ld. Addl. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO as the assessee had not submitted anything before the ld. Addl

Bitthal Das Parwal, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

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

ITA 1348/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Him. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

disclosed in original return of income and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In the first appeal the additions of Rs.3,18,558/- on account of disallowances of set off losse was not challenged by the assessee before

Anop Devi Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 7(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 1330/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No. 1330/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Anop Devi Sharma Plot No. B-3, Dadu Nagar Near Pardaya Hospital, Sanganer, Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम The ITO Vs. Ward 7(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AYSPA 0827 F निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mathur, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Add

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 147Section 250Section 69

unexplained investment for the year under consideration and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 3.2 In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. The narration as made ... investment made by him in purchasing of immovable property for a cost acquisition of Rs.25,43,490/- on 31-10-2013. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A)has confirmed the action of the AO as the assessee had not submitted any documents to controvert the order

Galaxy Coop Hsg Soc Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Ward(1)(1), Thane, Maharahstra

ITA 514/MUM/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

vide intimation/order dated 20.05.2015 u/s 143(1) of the Act. 4. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said intimation/order dated 20.05.2015, by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, with a delay of 7 years and 6 months which was declined by the Ld. Commissioner by holding as under

Galaxy Co Op Hsg Society Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Ward(1)(1), Thane, Maharahstra

ITA 513/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

Kakadiya Parivarna Kuldevi Shree Brahmani Khodiyar Trust, Amreli vs. The ITO Exemption, Ward(2), Rajkot.

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

ITA 140/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiassessment Year: (2021-2022) Kakadiya Parivarna Kuldevi Sghree The Ito Exemption Brahmani Khodiyar Trust Ward-2, Rajkot. Vs. Jaysukhbhai Laljibhai Kakadiya Jarkhida, Ta. Lathi, Amreli Pan : Aadtk 1328 E (Assessee) (Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, ld.Sr.DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 24

assessee had not filed audit report in Form 10B within due date, as per Section 139(1) of the Act. The assessee's first appeal before the CIT(A) against the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act has been dismissed ... Audit report in Form 10B is filed before first appeal proceedings, which may be accepted as a compliance, when statutory audit was carried out earlier. Hence, Ld. Counsel prays the Bench that the matter may be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider Form 10B, filed

Rupesh Jaiswal, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer, Indore

ITA 889/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 144

Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 24.04.2025 28.04.2025 आदेश / ORDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 09.02.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Gurugram [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order

Prakash Mandhwani, Bhopal vs. CIT(A), NFAC

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 873/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)

Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 24.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.04.2025 sez1/O RDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 30.10.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated ... order dated 23.03.2016 u/s 143(3) determining total income at Rs. 87,41,142/- after making certain additions. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first- appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A), however, dismissed assessee’s first-appeal in limine as un-admitted finding the same as delayed

M/S Shishukunj Educational Society, the Shishukunj International School, Gram Jhalaria vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Director General of Income Tax. Aaykar Bhawan

ITA 806/IND/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Apr 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 10Section 127(2)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA

Kath Brothers, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 77/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

plus Rs.79,698) is taxed @ 60% u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the I T Act, 1961. Without issuing any show cause notice. In first appeal assessee filed the detailed WS, legal position, however the ld. AO CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. By stating that The appellant

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jaipur vs. Nash Fashion(India) Limited, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA no

ITA 89/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh Addl. CIT a

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80G

interest expenses and the other of Rs.1,27,67,676/- by way of disallowing of deduction u/s. 80G claimed by the assessee. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 1,46,69,188/- [total addition made

Nash Fashion (India) Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA no

ITA 160/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80G

interest expenses and the other of Rs.1,27,67,676/- by way of disallowing of deduction u/s.80G claimed by the assessee. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.1,46,69,188/- [total addition made by the A.O. u/s.40(a)(ia) Rs.2,05,50,411/- minus