← 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 Krishnakant Pandey, Ghatkopar West vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27 2 2 Mumbai, Vashi Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 1249/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 250Section 254(1)

well as CIT(A) passed the ex-parte order. The assessee Mahesh Krishkant Pandey appointed tax consultant to persue his assessment as well as first appeal before CIT(A). His tax and consultant, due to his old age was not able to timely response to various notices, which resulted

Mr. Anil Bherumal Kalal, Mumbai vs. ITO -19(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, substantial ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 1189/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Mr. Anil Bherumal Kalal Ito – 19(2)(1), Mumbai A-602, Pooja Enclave, S T Braz Road, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Behind Nanavati Hospital, Vile Parle Bandra (East), Mumbai – West, Mumbai-400056. 400051. Pan: Aabpk 3216 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Subhash Chhajed, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Pradnya Gholap, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.04.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Dated 30.12.2024 For A.Y. 2006-07. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Validity Of The Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act & The Assessment Thereunder: 1.A) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit (A)] Erred In Upholding The Assessment For The Assessment Year 2006-07 Framed By The Learned Assessing Officer Without Complying With The Relevant Provisions Of The Law. B) It Is Respectfully Submitted That No Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act Was Served On The Appellant Within The Time Limits Prescribed Under Section 143(2) Of The Act. Accordingly, The Learned Assessing Officer Had No Jurisdiction To Proceed With Scrutiny Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Act. Thus, The Assessment Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Quashed & Struck Down As Null & Void. In View Of The Above, The Appellant Prays That The Assessment Be Set Aside As Bad In Law & Struck Down As Null & Void.

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Pradnya Gholap, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 254(1)Section 54FSection 69

similar compensation from builder. On perusal of various screen shot of ITBA portal, I find that assessee furnished all such evidences during pendency of first appeal. No verification of fact was carried out by ld. CIT(A) about explanation of such source of investment. No adverse material was brought

Oliria Foods and Beverages Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1531/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B(1)(ix)

grounds No. 3,4,5 of appeal of the appellant are dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 5. The first appeal filed by the assessee was decided against the assessee by the ld. CIT(A). Feeling dissatisfied with order, the assessee- 25 Oliria Foods

Income Tax Officer, Ferozepur Cantt vs. Arozepal Sandhu, Village Ratta Khera

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 422/ASR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm (Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.422/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ito Ward 3(1) Shri Arozepal Sandhu बनाम/ 162-P, G.T.Road, (Prop M/S Babal Fuel Plaza) Vs. Ferozepur Cantt. Village Ratta Khera Punjab.152001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aarpm-5393-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Manpreet Singh Duggal – Ld. Sr. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Y.K. Sud (Ca) – Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 14-06-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) On 07-04-2021. The Sole Grievance Of The Revenue Is Deletion Of Addition Of Rs.289.55 Lacs As Made By Ld. Ao U/S 68 Of The Act. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, Our Adjudication Would Be As Under.

For Appellant: Sh. Manpreet Singh Duggal – Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Y.K. Sud (CA) – Ld. AR
Section 143(3)Section 68

with respect to 4 parties and accordingly, the loans of Rs.289.55 Lacs were added as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. 3. During first appeal, the assessee furnished additional evidences to substantiate these loans which were subjected to remand report of Ld. AO. The assessee obtained loan from his parents

DCIT, Circle-1, Bathinda vs. Talwandi Sabo Power Ltd, Mansa

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 232/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm (Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.232/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle-1 M/S Talwandi Sabo Power Ltd. बनाम/ Vs. Bhatinda -151 001 Village Banawala, Mansa Talwandi Sabo Road, Punjab. 151302. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacct-6775-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Neeraj Jain, Sh. Deepesh Jain, (Advs) & Ms Aditi Garg, Ca – Ld. Ars Revenue By : Sh. Manpreet Singh Duggal – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dated 22-03-2024 In The Matter Of Impugned [Enalty Levied By Ld. Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Vide Its Order Dated 31-01-2019. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, Sh. Deepesh Jain, (Advs) &For Respondent: Sh. Manpreet Singh Duggal – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

commercial operation, Ld. AO held that remaining expenditure was also required to be capitalized. Finally, the assessment was framed which stood confirmed in first appeal vide order dated 04-10-2017. 3. Consequently, penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) which culminated into impugned penalty

Sunita Gupta, Indore vs. ACIT Circle-2(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 136/RPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.136/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Sunita Gupta 404, Suraj Villa, 9/2 New Palasia, Indore (M.P)-452 001 Pan: Adcpg7885L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Mrs. Shelly Maheshwari, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 3Section 68

income from unexplained sources u/s.68 of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 2.2 Aggrieved from the said order the appellant had filed its first appeal before CIT(A) on 31.01.2018, which was subsequently migrated to faceless appeal. During the course of faceless appeal proceedings, 5 opportunities of hearing were ... days though the same was condoned by Hon'ble Tribunal. Now, in the present set-aside appeal proceedings, which is second cycle of first appeal, the appellant is not coming forward with any response despite four opportunities allowed to her and despite the categorical directions of Hon'ble ITAT that

Late Sh. Shri Ram, Through Legal Heir Ramesh Kumar, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-Bhiwadi, Bhiwadi

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

ITA 126/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Apr 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT- DR
Section 148Section 2(14)Section 54F

Revenue, the entire share of the sale consideration of Rs.28,33,600/- is brought to tax under the head ‘’Short Term Capital Gains.” In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding therein that the assessee had not produced any material to controvert

Mr.Suresh Kumar Kakkar, Nawanshahr vs. Income Tax Officer, Nawanshahr

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

ITA 576/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Das Gupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No.576/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 250

addition of Rs.29.92 lakhs has been challenged in appeal before the Ld. first appellate authorities. 5. In first appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC, the notice of hearing has been duly received by the assessee and adjournment has been sought on various occasions without any proper representation ... record. I.T.A. No.576/Asr/2024 4 Assessment Year: 2012-13 7.1 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

Wani Iron Steel, Srinagar vs. Ward 1 Srinagar, Srinagar

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 462/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No.462/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

added back to the total income as unverifiable purchase u/s 69C of the Act 61. I.T.A. No.462/Asr/2024 3 And I.T.A. No.442/Asr/2024 3. In first appeal proceedings, the Ld. CIT (A), restricted the said disallowance to 10% (ten percentage) of the disputed purchases, considering the fact that the corresponding sales against

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Srinagar, Srinagar vs. Wani Iron Steel, Nowgam by Pass

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 442/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No.462/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

added back to the total income as unverifiable purchase u/s 69C of the Act 61. I.T.A. No.462/Asr/2024 3 And I.T.A. No.442/Asr/2024 3. In first appeal proceedings, the Ld. CIT (A), restricted the said disallowance to 10% (ten percentage) of the disputed purchases, considering the fact that the corresponding sales against

Mukesh Kumar Saini, Dausa Rajasthan vs. ITO WD, Dausa

In the result, the appeal is Dismissed

ITA 169/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Mrs. Suhani Meharwal, CA (Thru:VC)For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT -DR a
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

minus Rs.70,39,970/- 2,02,530) 3. Total assessed income u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Rs.72,42,500/- I.T. Act, 1961 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO holding as under:- ‘’7.4………But, the appellant has not furnished the requisite evidences

Mukesh Kumar Saini, Dausa vs. ITO WD, Dausa

In the result, the appeal is Dismissed

ITA 168/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Mrs. Suhani Meharwal, CA (Thru:VC)For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT -DR a
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

minus Rs.70,39,970/- 2,02,530) 3. Total assessed income u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Rs.72,42,500/- I.T. Act, 1961 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO holding as under:- ‘’7.4………But, the appellant has not furnished the requisite evidences

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Sydler Remedies Pvt Ltd, Aurangabad

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

ITA 1274/PUN/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1274/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Sydler Remedies Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad. M-190, Midc, Waluj, Aurangabad- 431002. Pan : Aaics3879E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By Shri Kishor B. Phadke : Date Of Hearing 16.01.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.04.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Pune-12 [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts By Deleting The Addition Made As Per Provisions Of Section 698 R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The 1.T. Act On Declaration Made Of Rs. 5,88,00,000/- On Account Of Excess Stock Found During Survey For Which Assessee Failed To Offer Any Satisfactory Explanation During The Survey As Well As Assessment Proceedings.

For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 698Section 69B

amount of Rs.5,88,00,000/- to the total income of the assessee u/s 69B of the IT Act along-with other additions. In first appeal, after considering the submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the whole of the addition of Rs.5

Reena Devi, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-43(2), Delhi

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

ITA 2312/DEL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Reena Devi Vs Ito 103, Kakraula Village Ward-43(2) Delhi-110075 Delhi Pan-Axbpd3958N Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.04.2025

passed ex-parte without serving the notice on the assessee under the provisions of the Act. The additional evidences were filed in the first appeal. The CIT(A) called for the Remand Report and confronted such Remand Report to the assessee. The assessee in turn filed a re-joinder

ITO, Ward-11(1), New Delhi vs. Honey Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2827/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: us by taking sole ground of appeal. “The ld. CIT(A) has erred in deletion of the addition of Rs.2,06,50,000/- made by Assessing officer on account of cash deposit during demonetization.”

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

cash deposit in bank during demonetization period. Further a disallowance of Rs. 3,94,941/- out of business promotion expenses was also made. In first appeal, vide order dt. 10.11.2022, ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee where the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition

Akhil Bhartiya Gahoi Vaishya Mahasabha, Gwalior vs. ITO, Gwalior

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 238/AGR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra08 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Smt Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 148

only 9 days. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.05.2024 is set aside. The delay in filing the first appeal before first appellate authority stands condoned. We restore the matter back to the file of learned CIT(Appeals) for passing order afresh on merit

Anil Kumar, Firozabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2)(1), Firozabad

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 108/AGR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra08 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

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

Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69A

assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals) who confirmed the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer and dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 4. The assessee has filed this appeal on the ground that the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.37

Priya Prasad Shirodkar, Calangute vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Panaji

ITA 53/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji08 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 053/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Priya Prasad Shirodkar H.No. 4/96, Prabhuwaddo, Calangute, Goa Pan : Akipg9924D . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 07/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08/04/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order 1065516948(1) Dt. 10/06/2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 26/09/2022 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt. Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfeac’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2020-21 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 253(3)

against the returned income of ₹16,06,900/-. 4. Aggrieved assessee attempted to resolve the dispute in first appeal before the Ld. NFAC, who in the event of non-prosecution by the assessee dismissed the ex-parte in limine. Thus aggrieved by impugned order, the assessee came in present appeals

Virupaxappa Sidramappa Bembalgi, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Belgavu

ITA 11/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji08 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 011/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S Virupakaxappa Sidramappa Bembalgi 580, Saraf Katta, Shahapur, Belgaum-590003. Pan : Aadfv3936F . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr A S Patil [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

income of the appellant and culminated the assessment vide order dt. 13/11/2019 u/s 143(3) of the Act. 6. When matter climbed up in first appeal, the Ld. NFAC reconsidered the factual matrix and then countenanced the addition and assessment. While doing so the Ld. NFAC requoted the discrepancies noted

Sattyasheel Nandlal Naik(HUF), Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Pune

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

ITA 761/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.761/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sattyasheel Nandlal Naik Vs. Dcit, Circle-6, Pune. (Huf), 878, Shukrawar Peth, Pune- 411002. Pan : Aaahn5509B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. N. Puranikh Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai : Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Cit(Appeals) Has Erred On Facts & Law In Confirming The Addition To Income Of Rs.54,99,635/- On Account Of Income From House Property U/S 23(4) Of I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Puranikh
Section 143(2)Section 23(4)

returned by the assessee at Rs.2,76,71,380/-. The above assessed income includes income from house property of Rs.54,99,635/-. 4. In first appeal after considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal and confirmed the addition of Rs.54,99,635/- made