← 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

Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Limited, Delhi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 115/AGR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

dismissed. 7. Proceeding further on merits also, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has eventually rejected the books of accounts of the assessee during first appeal and applied presumptive rate of tax of 8% on turnover in terms of Sec.44AD to estimate the income of the assessee. It clearly emerges ... supra) duly supports the case of the assessee on merits. 8. We further find that pertinently the assessee furnished additional evidences during first appeal which were subjected to remand proceedings. These evidences include statutory registers of Mandi Utpadan Samiti bearing elaborate details of raw material supply to the assessee

Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Limited, Delhi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 114/AGR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

dismissed. 7. Proceeding further on merits also, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has eventually rejected the books of accounts of the assessee during first appeal and applied presumptive rate of tax of 8% on turnover in terms of Sec.44AD to estimate the income of the assessee. It clearly emerges ... supra) duly supports the case of the assessee on merits. 8. We further find that pertinently the assessee furnished additional evidences during first appeal which were subjected to remand proceedings. These evidences include statutory registers of Mandi Utpadan Samiti bearing elaborate details of raw material supply to the assessee

Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Limited, Delhi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 113/AGR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

dismissed. 7. Proceeding further on merits also, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has eventually rejected the books of accounts of the assessee during first appeal and applied presumptive rate of tax of 8% on turnover in terms of Sec.44AD to estimate the income of the assessee. It clearly emerges ... supra) duly supports the case of the assessee on merits. 8. We further find that pertinently the assessee furnished additional evidences during first appeal which were subjected to remand proceedings. These evidences include statutory registers of Mandi Utpadan Samiti bearing elaborate details of raw material supply to the assessee

N.K. Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 448/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: NK Industries Ltd (Cross Appeals)
Section 250

written off was nothing but gain/income in the hands of the assessee by relying upon Section 28(iv) and 41(1). The assessee's first appeal was allowed by the Commissioner, but his order was reversed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, forcing the assessee to file a tax case

N.K. Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 447/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: NK Industries Ltd (Cross Appeals)
Section 250

written off was nothing but gain/income in the hands of the assessee by relying upon Section 28(iv) and 41(1). The assessee's first appeal was allowed by the Commissioner, but his order was reversed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, forcing the assessee to file a tax case

The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1)., Ahmedabad vs. N.K. Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 443/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: NK Industries Ltd (Cross Appeals)
Section 250

written off was nothing but gain/income in the hands of the assessee by relying upon Section 28(iv) and 41(1). The assessee's first appeal was allowed by the Commissioner, but his order was reversed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, forcing the assessee to file a tax case

The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1)., Ahmedabad vs. N.K. Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 442/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: NK Industries Ltd (Cross Appeals)
Section 250

written off was nothing but gain/income in the hands of the assessee by relying upon Section 28(iv) and 41(1). The assessee's first appeal was allowed by the Commissioner, but his order was reversed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, forcing the assessee to file a tax case

Citizen Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 2681/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2681/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Citizen Nagari Sahakri Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Nashik. Patsanstha Ltd., 5, Dsouza Colony, Tulip Apartment, College Road, Nashik- 422005. Pan : Aabac1443M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Lower Authorities Have Erred In Confirming An Addition Of Rs.74,80,000/- As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S.68 Of The It Act, By Disregarding The Detailed Submission Made By The Appellant, Wherein It Was Mentioned That The Case Deposited In Bank Belongs To Identified

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 68

Respectfully following the precedent, I overturn the impugned order and direct to delete the addition of Rs.1,78,500/- sustained in the first appeal.” 5. Respectfully following the decision of ITAT Pune Bench in the case of M/s.Bhagur Urban Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., in ITA No.561/PUN/2022, it is held

Dhanvantari Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Baramati vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

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

ITA 1743/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1743/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dhanvantari Nagari Sahakari Vs. Ito, National E- Patsanstha Maryadit, Assessment Centre, Burudgalli, Delhi. Baramati- 413102. Pan : Aaaad2725Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nitin Rander & Shri Jitender Rander Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Assessing Officer & Ld. Cit(A) Have Erred In Disallowing A Sum Of Rs.67,07,883/- For Interest Income Earned Out Of Fixed Deposits/Investments With Other Co-Operative Societies & Which Is Eligible For Deduction U/S 80P(2)(D) Or 80P(A)(I) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Rander &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Rs.67,07,880/- as against Rs.Nil income declared by the assessee. 3 4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred first appeal before Ld.. CIT(A)/NFAC. After considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal and confirmed the disallowance

ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Pune vs. Nandu Antaram Rajput, Pune

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

ITA 1688/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri B. B. ManeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(2)Section 143(3)

account of disallowance of interest expenses as against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.12,64,610/-. 4 4. In first appeal, after considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal and deleted the addition made by the AO. It is this order against which

Samir Narain Bhojwani, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 260/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

These amounts were claimed as business expenditure under section 37 of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer, the Commissioner in first appeal and the Tribunal in second appeal, rejected the said claim as not allowable under section 37 and 20. ITA No.260/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19) it is against

Satnam Singh, Nai Basti Aligarh vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(1)(1), Marris Road Aligarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 12/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Who Dismissed Assessee’S First Appeal Exparte In Default Of Assessee.

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

assessed total income at Rs. 12,87,310/-. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal exparte in default of assessee. 4. Assessee has filed this second appeal on the ground that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the said addition

Poonam Gupta, Gwalior vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Gwalior

Appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 215/AGR/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Apr 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A wherein addition of Rs.70,14,083/- and Rs.88,000/- was made. In first appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) both the additions were deleted. The matter was carried before the ITAT who vide order dated 17.07.2013 confirmed the addition of Rs.70

Income Tax Officer, Panaji vs. Anil Raghuvir Sirsat, Parra Bardez

ITA 289/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 289/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Panaji. . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr D E Robinson [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Manikandan [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 253(2)Section 69A

deposits and (b) ₹90,29,251/- sums credited into bank accounts maintained with Punjab National Bank. 2.2 The assessee impugned the aforestated additions in first appeal before Ld. NFAC. Wherein both the additions were deleted and appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. The Revenue aggrieved by the deletion

Sir Syed Educational & Welfare Society, Bhopal vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 821/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshisir Syed Educational & Assessment Unit, Social Welfare Society, Income Tax Department, 867, Ankur Complex, Delhi बनाम/ Hb Colony, Koh E Fiza, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aacts0888E Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2025

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

Date of Hearing 23.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 24.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 25.09.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment ... assessee has filed adjournment requests on last two dates of hearing but the CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal on the premise of non-prosecution, which is against the provision of section 250(3) authorizing the assessee to seek adjournments, the settled judicial system and the principal

Pappu Jaiswal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 281/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

delay in filing the SLP was condoned and the question before the Supreme Court was whether the District Judge was justified in dismissing the first appeal on the ground of delay. HELD allowing the appeal: (a) While considering an application for condonation of delay no strait-jacket formula is prescribed

Vinod Kumar Chugh, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 207/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 274

assessee also submitted that the ld. AR of the assessee who was dealing with this matter in the assessment and filed the first appeal. In the meanwhile, on account of Covid-19 that consultant was expired and therefore, the proceedings before ld. CIT(A) were not attended and could

DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hydeabad vs. Avra Laboratories Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1300/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA K C DevdasFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

Assessing Officer without appreciating the Receipt and Letter of Appreciation issued by the IISc, Bangalore, has disallowed the claim of the assessee. In First Appeal, the learned CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the appellant-company and the documentary evidences placed on record, has rightly allowed the claim

Sanjay Gulati, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer 2(1)(4), Agra

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 22/AGR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

Delhi u/s. 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals), dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 2. At the very outset, ld. Representative for assessee has requested to condone the delay of about 452 days (469 days according to assessee

Bhagirath Pakharia, Jhansi vs. Ward 2 (3)(1), Jhansi

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 571/AGR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.565/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.566/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 567/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 568/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 569/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 570/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 571/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Bhagirath Pakharia Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 124, Nanak Ganj, Sipri Bazar, Ward 2(3)(1), Jhansi. Vs. Jhansi (Up) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Amdpp-6709-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Prarthana Jalan, Ca – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-04-2025

For Appellant: Ms. Prarthana Jalan, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

stock in trade. Finally, Ld. AO added the amount of Rs.94.11 Lacs as undisclosed income / money u/s 69A and framed the assessment. 3. During first appeal, the assessee disputed the valuation and stated that Ld. AO invoked the provisions of Sec.50C without reference to valuation officer. However