← 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

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

Shailesh Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, ITO Ward 28(3)(1), Mumbai, Vashi Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 698/MUM/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhshri Girish Agrawalshailesh Co Operative Housing Society Limited Plot No. 12, Sector, Sector 19A Nerul (East) Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra -400706. Pan No. Aaaas8609J ……………. Appellant Versus

For Appellant: Ms. Vidya Jayakumar, CA/ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 254(1)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) on 02.02.2024. The assessee also filed application for condonation of delay of 2804 days in filing first appeal. Such fact was clearly stated in Form 35. The application of assessee for condonation of delay was dismissed by taking view that assessee furnished innovative

Nisar Ahmed Khan, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 20(2), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are

ITA 606/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhshri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) बनाम Nisar Ahmed Khan Acit, Circle – 20(2) 1St Floor, Room No. 23, Bootwala Piramal Chamber, Chawl, Duncan Road, M.A. Road, Vs Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai - 400008 Mumbai-400012 Pan No. Aiipa2008C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 144Section 254(1)Section 69A

appeal of the assessee is dismissed for the want of submission. Considering the fact that AR/CA of the assessee died during pendency of first appeal before CIT(A), thus, we find submissions of ld AR of the assessee as convincing that the assessee was not aware about the passing

Rambilas S Agarwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 26(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3238/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Ld. D.R

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 250Section 68Section 69

scrip involved. 4. The Assessee, being aggrieved against the additions made by the AO, challenged the same before the Ld. Commissioner by filing first appeal, however, of no avail, as the Ld. Commissioner affirmed the aforesaid addition on the similar footing/reasoning, as of the AO. 5. The Assessee, being aggrieved

Prem Chawla Legal Heir of Late Smt Sudesh Chawla, Bhopal vs. Asstt. Comm. of I.Tax 1(1) Bhopal, Bhopal

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

ITA 755/IND/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Apr 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 153ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 2.6 That the “first assessment order” dated 17.12.2007 (supra) was challenged by the assessee in the first appeal before CIT(A) who vide order No.CIT(A)-I/BPL/IT-399/2007-2008 dated 23.07.2008 granted to the assessee relief of Rs.25,41,285/-. This appellate order

Prem Chawla Legal Heir of Late Smt. Sudesh Chawla, Bhopal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhopal

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

ITA 684/IND/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Apr 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 153ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 2.6 That the “first assessment order” dated 17.12.2007 (supra) was challenged by the assessee in the first appeal before CIT(A) who vide order No.CIT(A)-I/BPL/IT-399/2007-2008 dated 23.07.2008 granted to the assessee relief of Rs.25,41,285/-. This appellate order

Prem Chawla Legal Heir of Late Smt. Sudesh Chawla, Bhopal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhopal

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

ITA 683/IND/2024[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Apr 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 153ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 2.6 That the “first assessment order” dated 17.12.2007 (supra) was challenged by the assessee in the first appeal before CIT(A) who vide order No.CIT(A)-I/BPL/IT-399/2007-2008 dated 23.07.2008 granted to the assessee relief of Rs.25,41,285/-. This appellate order

Prem Chawla Legal Heir of Late Smt. Sudesh Chawla, Bhopal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhopal

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

ITA 682/IND/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Apr 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 153ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 2.6 That the “first assessment order” dated 17.12.2007 (supra) was challenged by the assessee in the first appeal before CIT(A) who vide order No.CIT(A)-I/BPL/IT-399/2007-2008 dated 23.07.2008 granted to the assessee relief of Rs.25,41,285/-. This appellate order

Prem Chawla Legal Heir of Late Smt. Sudesh Chawla, Bhopal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhopal

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

ITA 681/IND/2024[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Apr 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 153ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 2.6 That the “first assessment order” dated 17.12.2007 (supra) was challenged by the assessee in the first appeal before CIT(A) who vide order No.CIT(A)-I/BPL/IT-399/2007-2008 dated 23.07.2008 granted to the assessee relief of Rs.25,41,285/-. This appellate order

Prem Chawla Legal Heir of Late Smt. Sudesh Chawla, Bhopal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhopal

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

ITA 680/IND/2024[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Apr 2025AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 153ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 2.6 That the “first assessment order” dated 17.12.2007 (supra) was challenged by the assessee in the first appeal before CIT(A) who vide order No.CIT(A)-I/BPL/IT-399/2007-2008 dated 23.07.2008 granted to the assessee relief of Rs.25,41,285/-. This appellate order

Prem Chawla, Bhopal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhopal

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

ITA 679/IND/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Apr 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 153ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 2.6 That the “first assessment order” dated 17.12.2007 (supra) was challenged by the assessee in the first appeal before CIT(A) who vide order No.CIT(A)-I/BPL/IT-399/2007-2008 dated 23.07.2008 granted to the assessee relief of Rs.25,41,285/-. This appellate order

Prem Chawla, Bhopal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhopal

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

ITA 678/IND/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Apr 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 153ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 2.6 That the “first assessment order” dated 17.12.2007 (supra) was challenged by the assessee in the first appeal before CIT(A) who vide order No.CIT(A)-I/BPL/IT-399/2007-2008 dated 23.07.2008 granted to the assessee relief of Rs.25,41,285/-. This appellate order

Prem Chawla, Bhopal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhopal

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

ITA 677/IND/2024[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Apr 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 153ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 2.6 That the “first assessment order” dated 17.12.2007 (supra) was challenged by the assessee in the first appeal before CIT(A) who vide order No.CIT(A)-I/BPL/IT-399/2007-2008 dated 23.07.2008 granted to the assessee relief of Rs.25,41,285/-. This appellate order

Prem Chawla, Bhopal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhopal

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

ITA 676/IND/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Apr 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 153ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 2.6 That the “first assessment order” dated 17.12.2007 (supra) was challenged by the assessee in the first appeal before CIT(A) who vide order No.CIT(A)-I/BPL/IT-399/2007-2008 dated 23.07.2008 granted to the assessee relief of Rs.25,41,285/-. This appellate order

Prem Chawla, Bhopal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhopal

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

ITA 675/IND/2024[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Apr 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 153ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 2.6 That the “first assessment order” dated 17.12.2007 (supra) was challenged by the assessee in the first appeal before CIT(A) who vide order No.CIT(A)-I/BPL/IT-399/2007-2008 dated 23.07.2008 granted to the assessee relief of Rs.25,41,285/-. This appellate order

Prem Chawla, Bhopal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhopal

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

ITA 674/IND/2024[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Apr 2025AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 153ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 2.6 That the “first assessment order” dated 17.12.2007 (supra) was challenged by the assessee in the first appeal before CIT(A) who vide order No.CIT(A)-I/BPL/IT-399/2007-2008 dated 23.07.2008 granted to the assessee relief of Rs.25,41,285/-. This appellate order

Prem Chawla, Bhopal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhopal

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

ITA 673/IND/2024[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Apr 2025AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 153ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 2.6 That the “first assessment order” dated 17.12.2007 (supra) was challenged by the assessee in the first appeal before CIT(A) who vide order No.CIT(A)-I/BPL/IT-399/2007-2008 dated 23.07.2008 granted to the assessee relief of Rs.25,41,285/-. This appellate order

Satish Kumar Radheshyam Choudhari, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer, Indore

ITA 406/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 144Section 147Section 246ASection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 253

which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order” preferred an first appeal in terms of Section 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) and who by impugned order at para 3.4 has observed and avered as under ... order is in violation of the principle of natural justice in much before rejecting and/or dismissing the appeal and that too when the assessee first appeal under the Act; at least Ld. CIT(A) should have given an opportunity of hearing to the assessee which was not given. Under these

Dinesh Kumar Mittal, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1570/JPR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). Apropos To The Grounds So Raised The Relevant Finding Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Reiterated Here

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 10Section 154

only. Further the assessee filed 2 rectification applications but he did not get the relief and further approached CIT(A) by filing first appeal, however, the Ld. CIT(A) uphold the order of the Ld. CPC as the assessee could not submit his FORM 16 for concerned assessment year

Sanchar Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Junnar vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 8, Pune

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

ITA 2434/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2428 & 2434/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sanchar Gramin Bigarsheti Vs. Assessment Unit, Sahakari Patsanstha Income Tax Department. Maryadit, Arvi Junnar- 412401. Pan : Aagas3985H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Shah Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 27.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Respectively. 2. Since The Facts Are Identical & Both The Above Captioned Appeals Were Heard Together, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2434/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 44ASection 69ASection 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

mention here that the Assessing Officer estimated 10% net profit u/s 44AD on total receipt and credit entries of the bank accounts. In first appeal, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has confirmed the disallowance of the Assessing Officer at 10% was reduced to 8% and the appeal was partly allowed

Sanchar Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Junnar vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 8, Pune

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

ITA 2428/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2428 & 2434/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sanchar Gramin Bigarsheti Vs. Assessment Unit, Sahakari Patsanstha Income Tax Department. Maryadit, Arvi Junnar- 412401. Pan : Aagas3985H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Shah Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 27.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Respectively. 2. Since The Facts Are Identical & Both The Above Captioned Appeals Were Heard Together, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2434/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 44ASection 69ASection 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

mention here that the Assessing Officer estimated 10% net profit u/s 44AD on total receipt and credit entries of the bank accounts. In first appeal, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has confirmed the disallowance of the Assessing Officer at 10% was reduced to 8% and the appeal was partly allowed