“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

M/S Modern Paint Stores, Jhansi vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-2(3)(1), Jhansi

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 237/AGR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

initiated in the assessment order for concealment of particulars of income and filing of inaccurate particulars of income. The quantum assessment after first appeal order stood reduced to Rs.77.20 Lacs. The Ld. AO proceeded to levy penalty on the assessee. The assessee stated that difference in value of stock

DCIT Circle-2(1), Gwalior vs. Gdp Agro & Food, Gwalior

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 346/AGR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 346/Agr/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) Dcit, Circle 2(1), Gdp Agro & Food Products Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Gwalior. Ward No. 54, Gudagudi Ka Naka, Vs. Bajriya, Lashkar, Gwalior (Mp) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecg-1517-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Deependra Mohan, Ca – Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appealby Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Gwalior [Cit(A)] On 08-05-2017 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 28-03-2015. Both Sides Made Vehement Arguments. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. The Sole Grievance Of The Revenue Is Profit Addition On Unaccounted Purchases & Unexplained Stock-In-Trade. The Assessee Is Stated To Be Engaged In Processing & Trading Of Sesame Seeds. The Assessee Was Subjected To Survey U/S 133A On 15-01-2015 Which Form The Basis Of Assessment.

For Appellant: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Deependra Mohan, CA – Ld. AR

Section 133ASection 143(3)

also estimated unaccounted closing stock against the same for Rs.151.82 Lacs and further added the same to the income of the assessee. 3. During first appeal, the assessee’ submissions were subjected to remand proceedings. Based on the same, Ld. CIT(A), in para 5.1.3, noted that note books as seized

M/S Varun Exports, Agra vs. DCIT-4(1), Agra

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 212/AGR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 212/Agr/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) M/S. Varun Exports Dcit – 4(1), बनाम/ Near Shivji Mandir, Agra Vs. Balkeshwar Road, Agra. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaffv-2614-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Deependra Mohan, Ca – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Agra [Cit(A)] On 26-02-2015 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S143(3) On 21-03-2013. Having Heard Rival Submissions, Our Adjudication Would Be As Under. The Assessee Is Stated To Be Engaged In Manufacturing & Sale Of Footwear. The Assessee Was Subjected To Survey U/S 133A On 14-09-2009 Based On Which Impugned Assessment Has Been Framed. During Survey, The Assessee Surrendered Additional Income Of Rs.1.50 Crores Which Was Later On Retracted. 2. The Ld. Ao Noted That There Was Reduction In Turnover From Rs.24.52 Crores To Rs.20.86 Crores As Against Anticipated Turnover Of Rs.31 Crores. The Physical Stock During Survey Was Found To Be Much

For Appellant: Sh. Deependra Mohan, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)

than book stock to the extent of Rs.798.18 Lacs. Applying Gross profit Rate of 20.19%, Ld. AO made addition of Rs.161.15 Lacs. 3. During first appeal, the assessee’s submissions were subjected to remand proceedings wherein the assessee challenged the inventory of stock as prepared by the survey team

K.S. City Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-2, Gwalior

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 17/AGR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 17/Agr/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) K.S. City Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-2, बनाम/ 301, Silver Arc Plaza, 20/1, Gwalior Vs. New Palasia, Indore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacck-8217-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ca – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Gwalior [Cit(A)] On 23-12-2014 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 22-11-2011. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition U/S 68 For Rs.25 Lacs. Having Heard Rival Submissions, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. 2. Pursuant To Search Action On Assessee Group On 11-03-2010, Ld. Ao, During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Noted That The Assessee Issued Share Capital Of Rs.25 Lacs (Including Share Premium Of Rs.24.95 Lacs) To Smt. Alka Bansal. The Ld. Ao Added The Same U/S 68 For Want Of Sufficient Documentary Evidences.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

premium of Rs.24.95 Lacs) to Smt. Alka Bansal. The Ld. AO added the same u/s 68 for want of sufficient documentary evidences. 3. During first appeal, the assessee drew attention to the fact that the shareholder was regularly assessed to tax and the assessee furnished PAN of the shareholder

M/S Tomar & Brothers, Etawah vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-5, Firozabad

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 348/AGR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 348/Agr/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) M/S. Tomar & Brothers Acit, Circle 5, बनाम/ 843-A, Moti Jheel Colony, Firozabad. Vs. Etawah (Up). "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaft-7229-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2007-08 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Ii, Agra [Cit(A)] Dated 31-03-2014 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 29-12-2011. Both Sides Made Vehement Arguments. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed- Off As Under. The Ld. Ar Has Assailed The Validity Of Reassessment Proceedings. 2. Upon Perusal Of Assessment Order, It Could Be Seen That Assessee’S Return Of Income Was Scrutinized U/S. 143(3) On 18-11-2009. However, The Case Was Reopened Vide Notice U/S 07-01-2011 On The Allegation That The Assessee Did Not Deduct Tax At Source On Machinery Rental Payments.

For Appellant: Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 07Section 143(3)Section 194I

deduct tax at source on machinery rental payments. The Ld. AO accordingly, made addition of Rs.65.04 Lacs to the assessed income. 3. In the first appeal, the assessee raised pertinent legal ground that the case was reopened on audit objection whereas Ld. AO was not in agreement with the view

Spectrum Johnson Tiles Private Limited, Rajkot vs. The DCIT/ACIT Cir 1(1), Rajkot.

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed assessee

ITA 900/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm Aids Sittet S/Ita No. 900 /Rit/ 2024

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

Section 143(3)Section 14A

appeal has been dismissed by this tribunal. By order dated 08-02-2017 the relevant portion of the order is reproduced. 5. “In first appeal, the CIT(A), however, re-examined the issue and allowed the appeal of the assessee. The relevant extracts of the operative para of the order

Teju Parvat, Sanver vs. ITO-1(1), Indore

Appeal is disposed off on merits

ITA 635/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

furnishing of ITR are being initiated separately for the AY 2015-16”. 2.7 That the assessee being aggrieved by the impugned assessment order prefers first appeal as provided U/s 246A of the Act before CIT(A) who by the “Impugned Order” has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on grounds ... pass a fresh order with direction to assessee to place all papers, documents, credible evidence etc. so that at least first appeal is disposed off on merits. 4. Observations,findings & conclusions. 4.1 We now have to decide the legality, validity and the proprietary

Bal Mukund Patidar, Bhopal vs. Deputy Commisioner of ITO 2(3), Bhopal

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 585/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshibal Mukund Patidar, Dcit Of Ito 2(3), बनाम/ E-6/7, Arera Colony, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Pan: Afwpp2759L) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri S.K. Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 246Section 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Assessment Order”. 2.9 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order prefers first appeal u/s 246 of the Act before CIT(A) who by the “Impugned Order” has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Page 4 of 8 Bal Mukund ... Under the circumstances the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have proceeded exparte and ought not to have passed impugned order on 06.06.2024 rejecting first appeal of the assessee without even discussing the merits and demerits of the case. In these circumstances we set aside the impugned order and remand

Iliyas, Khargone vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 445/IND/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Apr 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiiliyas, Nfac, बनाम/ 56, Khargone Road Bedia, Delhi Vs. Khargone

Section 05Section 07Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 250Section 253

income (As discussed above) 4 Total income determined Rs.33,29,641/- 2.12 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “Impugned Assessment order” prefers first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) u/s 246A of the Act who by impugned order has held as under:- “FINDING 5. In Ground ... impugned order as it does not perse meets requirement of principal of natural justice and so also there is no effective disposal of the first appeal on meritorious grounds as contemplated by Section 250(6) of the Act. 5. Order 5.1 In result Impugned order is set aside

Madan Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 4(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 1416/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Rathore, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 133Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 60ASection 69A

concealing the particulars of income and for furnishing Inaccurate particulars of income are hereby initiated separately. In first appeal before ld. CIT(A), NFAC, it was noticed that the order of the ld.CIT(A) was ex-parte but based on the documents made available by the assessee before the ld.CIT

Vishal Gupta, Legal Heir Late Smt Geetu Gupta, Jagadhri vs. DCIT, Circle, Yamunanagar

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 291/CHANDI/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 291/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Vishal Gupta Dcit, Circle, (L/H Of Late Smt. Geetu Gupta) Yamunanagar. बनाम/ H.No.10B, 348/3A C6, Behind Haryana. Vs. Mansarover Building Sawanpuri, Jagadhri, Haryana 135003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bbspg-8072-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Vibhor Garg (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-04-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015- 16 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23-01-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143 (3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 10-12- 2018. The Deceased Assessee Is Represented By Shri Vishal Gupta. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Sh. Vibhor Garg (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143Section 44A

after reducing returned income of Rs.3.75 Lacs, added the remaining deposit of Rs.26.73 Lacs in the hands of the assessee. 3. In the first appeal, the assessee refuted the allegation of Ld. AO that she was not carrying out any business. It was demonstrated that the assessee was engaged

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Income Tax Department vs. Manorama Coop Bank Ltd, Solapur

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

ITA 2157/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2157/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Acit, Cricle-2, Solapur. Vs. Manorama Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Plot 4, 5, 6 Vijapur Road, Indiranagar S.O., Maharashtra- 413004. Pan : Aajfm6823C Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Shilpa N. C. Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) The Ld Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred In Admitting This Exemption U/S 194A (3)(V) To The Assessee For Non-Deduction Of Tds On Interest Credits Of Nominal Members Who Are Not Actual Member As Per Definition Of Person Who Is Eligible For Membership As Per Clause

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Ms. Shilpa N. C

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 40

account 3 of non-deduction of tax as per section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194A(3)(v) of the IT Act. 4. In first appeal, after considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. It is this order against which

Deohara Co-Operative Cane Development Union Limited, Bijnor vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Bijnor

In the result, appeals of the assessee in Appeal Nos

ITA 2852/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2851/Del/2024 (Assessment Year 2018-19) The Income Tax Seohara Co-Operative Cane Officer, Development Union Vs. Ward-3(1), Limited, 34-Station Road, Nazibabad-1, Up Seohara, Bijnor-246746. Pan-Aabas4970K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gurneet, Adv. Department By Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Three Separate Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) & All Are Dated 23.3.2024 For Ay 2018-19 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). Seohara Co-Operative Cane Development Union India Vs. Ito 2. As All The Three Appeals Are Related To One Assessment Year Against Three Seperate Orders Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 144B & Consequential Penalty Order U/S 270A & 271B Of The Act, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Filed By The Assessee On Account Of Delay In Filing The Respective Appeals. Since The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Relating To Dismissal Of Appeals Without Condoning The Delay In Filing, Thus All The Three Appeals Are Taken Together & Disposed Off By A Single Order.

Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 271BSection 44A

seen that the assessee has not filed any application explaining the circumstances for delay in filing the appeals before CIT(A). Moreover, in the first appeal there is a delay of 71 days against the order u/s 144 of the Act and of 64 days against the penalty orders. There

Seohara Co-Operative Cane Development Union Limited, Bijnor vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Bijnor

In the result, appeals of the assessee in Appeal Nos

ITA 2851/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 271BSection 44A

Seohara Co-Operative Cane Development Union Limited, Bijnor vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Bijnor

In the result, appeals of the assessee in Appeal Nos

ITA 2850/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 271BSection 44A

Mr. Charat Singh, Nawanshahar vs. Income Tax Officer, Nawanshahr

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 577/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Das Gupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No.577/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 282Section 69A

amount of cash deposited in bank was added back u/s 69A of the Act 61 to the total income of the assessee. In first appeal before the Ld. JCIT (A) – 1, Jaipur, in absence of any 5. representation nor any written submission from the assessee, in response to notices issued ... lands holdings and documentary evidences of agricultural income. 7. As such in the interest of justice , we remand the matter back to the Ld. first appeal authority , to adjudicate the issue on merits of the case after affording proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee ( through notice

Naresh Kumar, Village Sudhal vs. ITO Ward 2, Yamuna Nagar, Huda, Jagadhari

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 333/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.333/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Naresh Kumar Ito Ward 2, बनाम/ Village Sudhal, P.O. Khera, Tehsil Yamunanagar 135003 Vs. Jagadhri, Haryana-135001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bqupk-4845-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac),Delhi[Cit(A)] Dated 07-02-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 16-12-2019. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition Of Cash Deposit For Rs.14.25 Lacs.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144

well as presumptive income was added back to the declared income of Rs.4.17 Lacs and total income was assessed at Rs.18.42 Lacs. During first appeal, the assessee furnished sale deed of agricultural land and stated to have received certain amount on sale of agricultural lands. The Ld. CIT(A) granted

Mr. Atique Habib Ansari, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 14(3), Pune

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

ITA 716/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.716/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mr. Atique Habib Ansari, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(3), Pune. Flat No.3, Twin Towers, Wanowrie, Pune- 411040. Pan : Adipa2837L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Piyush Bafna Revenue By : Ms. Shilpa N. C. Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.02.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Vadodara For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed By Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Vadodara On The Ground Of Delay, Without Going Into Merits Of The Case. In This Regard, We Find That After Receiving The Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The It Act The Counsel Of The Assessee Preferred Rectification U/S 154 Of The It Act. The Same Remain Pending For Quite A Long Time & In Between When

For Appellant: Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Ms. Shilpa N. C

Section 143(1)Section 154

Vadodara found that the appeal has been filed with delay & dismissed the same. 3. In this regard, we find that the order dismissing the first appeal on the ground of delayed filing of the appeal is unjustified. The counsel of the assessee furnished an affidavit duly signed by the assessee

Bhujbal Brothers Construction Company, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2137/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay &

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 43C

best of judgement and on the basis of material available on records as stipulated u/s 144 of the IT Act. 3. In first appeal, after considering the reply of the assessee Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. It is this order before this Tribunal. 4. First ... assessee. In this regard, we find that the assessment order was passed ex-parte i.e. in the absence of assesse, thereafter in first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) it was contended by the assessee that due to market position certain units were sold at a price lower than the stamp

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune vs. Bhujbal Brothers Construction Company, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2119/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay &

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 43C