← 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

Neetesh Kumar Gupta, Shamshabad, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer WD 2(1)(3), Agra

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 107/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra01 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the first appeal of the assessee and confirmed the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer. 2. Brief facts state that the assessee filed his return ... 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. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, an adjournment application was placed on record, which was rejected. We have perused the records

Gangappa Dundappa Agasar, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(5), Belagavi

ITA 28/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 028/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Gangappa Dundappa Agasar Badli, Saundatti, Belgaum-591111 Pan : Apzpa2849H . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 01/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/04/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1065969614(1) Dt. 24/06/2024 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. 02/12/2019 Passed U/S 144 Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Belgavi [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2017-18 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

ITAT-Rules, 1963. Without touching grounds and merits we have heard the Revenue on limited issue of ex-parte dismissal of first appeals and subject to rule 18 of ITAT-Rules 1963 perused material placed on record. Admittedly, the appellant neither in the course of assessment proceedings

Krishna Plantations Private Limited, Margao vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

ITA 106/PAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 106/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Krishna Plantation Private Limited 15/1452, Nanu House, Varde Valaulikar Rd., Madgao, Goa Pan : Aaack6885G . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Madgao, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Smt Bhavya Goyal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ravindra Hattalli [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/04/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order 1062943051(1) Dt. 23/04/2024 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. 29/01/2021 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt. Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Smt Bhavya Goyal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ravindra Hattalli [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)

added to total income under the head Income from Other Sources. 3. Aggrieved assessee attempted to resolve the dispute in first appeal before the Ld. NFAC, who in the absence of forceful evidences dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by impugned order, the assessee came in present appeals

Rakesh Khivasara, Beawar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 86/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 115Section 127Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 234A

needing any specific adjudication and is accordingly treated as disposed off. 7. In the result, the appeal is treated as dismissed.” 5. As the first appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed and thereby feeling dissatisfied with the finding so recorded by the ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred

Dev Group, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward Behror, Behror

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

ITA 73/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 80

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

Krishan Kumar Yadav, Alwar vs. ITO Ward, Behror

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

ITA 69/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him. 2

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, Adv. & Shri Harsh Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 80

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

Ritu Dhaka, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 4(4), Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 68

Assessing Officer and therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. 5. In the result, appeal is dismissed.” 5. As the first appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed and therefore, feeling dissatisfied with that order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before this tribunal

Maanwati Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1329/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr. DR a
Section 101Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

both the appeals are that these loans had been received in regular course and the same were not accommodation entries. 1st Appeal In first appeal the Id. CIT (A) sustained the order of the Id. AO. Present appeal: Your honour, I would request your good self to kindly allow ... disallowed the claim of the assessee for the above said sum of Rs.6,75,000/- by alleging the same to be accommodation entry. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the view of the AO in holding the above interest paid as accommodation entries and confirmed the disallowance

Vishal Infraglobal Pvt. Ltd., Mehsana vs. The Dy.CIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2081/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.2080/Ahd/2024 & 2081/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Vishal Infraglobal Pvt.Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ Plot No.42, 2Nd Floor Gandhinagar Circle V/S. Apple Avenue Gandhinagar B/H. Dharti Flats Gayatri Temple, Highway Mehsana – 384 002 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaecv 2187 J अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divatia, Ar Revenue By : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr & Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01 /04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270A

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. The first appeal – i.e. ITA No.2080/Ahd/2024 challenges the ex-parte order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the assessee’s appeal against the assessment order

Vishal Infraglobal Pvt. Ltd., Mehsana vs. The Dy.CIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2080/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.2080/Ahd/2024 & 2081/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Vishal Infraglobal Pvt.Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ Plot No.42, 2Nd Floor Gandhinagar Circle V/S. Apple Avenue Gandhinagar B/H. Dharti Flats Gayatri Temple, Highway Mehsana – 384 002 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaecv 2187 J अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divatia, Ar Revenue By : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr & Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01 /04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270A

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. The first appeal – i.e. ITA No.2080/Ahd/2024 challenges the ex-parte order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the assessee’s appeal against the assessment order

Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-55(5), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 1059/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishras. G. Joshi (Huf) Vs. Income Tax Officer, B-4/33, Safdarjung Enclave, Circle 29(1) New Delhi-110029 New Delhi Pan: Aaihs9281F

Section 147Section 249(4)(b)

hereby set aside and we remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the first Appeal on its merit. Needless to say, the Assessee shall be provided with opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 3 S. G. Joshi

Sanskar Nagar, Jhansi vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

Appeals stands allowed

ITA 346/AGR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.351/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.352/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.353/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.354/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.349/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19; Smc Bench) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.346/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17; Smc Bench) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.347/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17; Smc Bench) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.348/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18; Smc Bench) & 9. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.350/Agr/2024

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 271D

party premises. It has been stated that no other material has been relied upon to make the impugned additions. The assessee explained in the first appeal that the addition has been made on the basis of report of the special auditor who re-casted trading account based on above seized ... since the so-called incriminating material was not found during search at assessee’s premises. The annulment of assessment on that ground in the first appeal was upheld by Hon’ble High Court in that case. Considering these decisions, the assessment stand quashed. 7. In appeal

Oxford Siksha Samiti Bhopal, Bhopal vs. ITO, Exemption, Gwalior

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 332/AGR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.332/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Oxford Siksha Samiti Bhopal Ito (Exemption) बनाम/ 96, Chitragupt Nagar Gwalior Vs. Kotra Sultana, Bhopal 462 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaao-3353-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anurag Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)

find that the assessee is an education institution and apparently, it is eligible to claim impugned deduction. However, the first appeal has been dismissed on technical grounds. Keeping in mind the principles of natural justice and considering the directions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land

Oxford Siksha Samiti Bhopal, Bhopal vs. ITO, Exemption, Gwalior

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 331/AGR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.331/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Oxford Siksha Samiti Bhopal Ito (Exemption) बनाम/ 96, Chitragupt Nagar Gwalior Vs. Kotra Sultana, Bhopal 462 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaao-3353-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anurag Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)

find that the assessee is an educational institution and apparently, it is eligible to claim impugned deduction. However, the first appeal has been dismissed on technical grounds. Keeping in mind the principles of natural justice and considering the directions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land

Rajesh Kumar, Mainpuri vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 282/AGR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.282/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Rajesh Kumar Ito-2(4) बनाम/ S/O Shri Ram Thekedar Kota Dealer Mainpuri Jila Udyog Kendra Vs. Hindpuram Colony, Mainpuri 205001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bmspk-6720-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sahib P. Satsangi (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

For Appellant: Shri Sahib P. Satsangi (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147

sourced out of bank withdrawals, business income and maturity proceeds of LIC. The assessee’s submissions were subjected to remand proceedings in the first appeal. The assessee maintained that the payments were made out of earlier bank withdrawals which are detailed on Page No.10 of the impugned order

Shiv Construction, Kishni, Karhel vs. ACIT2(2)(1), Firozabad

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 245/AGR/2024[A.Y. 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.245/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S Shiv Construction Acit-2(2)(1) बनाम/ Kishni Karhel, Mainpuri Firozabad Vs. Up 205264 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abbfs-3968-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Prarthna Jalan (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Prarthna Jalan (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR. 2. In the assessment order, Ld. AO estimated business income and made assessment of Rs.59.33 Lacs. The first appeal was dismissed for want of an effective representation from the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. Keeping in mind

Narendra Singh, Shamsabad, Agra vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Agra

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 243/AGR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.243/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sh. Narendra Singh Acit, Circle 2(1)(1) बनाम/ Village Mohanlal Theari Agra Vs. Shamsabad, Agra 283 104 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bsbps-0714-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anurag Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

cash deposits for Rs.22.61 Lacs u/s 68 and also disallowed expenses of Rs.95.27 Lacs for want of any representation from the assessee. The first appeal was also dismissed for the same very reason. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. Keeping in mind the principles of natural

Subhash Chandra Gupta, Mainpuri vs. ITO Ward-2(5), Mainpuri

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 216/AGR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.216/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Subhash Chandra Gupta Ito-2(5) बनाम/ Kharagjeet Nagar, Mainpuri Mainpuri Vs. Up 205001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adjpc-7010-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Rajiv Kulshreshtha (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Kulshreshtha (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 44A

made another addition of Rs.26.18 Lacs which represent balance in proprietor’s capital account since no business income was shown by the assessee. During first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) accepted the explanation for Rs.26.18 Lacs and deleted this addition but sustained another addition of Rs.11 Lacs for want

Rajni Chauhan, Agra vs. DCIT Centre Circle, Agra

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 150/AGR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.150/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Smt. Rajni Chauhan Dcit – Central Circle बनाम/ Sec-47, Moti Katra Agra Vs. Agra 282003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aqwpr-3516-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Deepender Mohan (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. Cit Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

For Appellant: Shri Deepender Mohan (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 23Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

occupied property. After granting statutory deduction of 30%, the income of Rs.13.02 Lacs was added to the income of the assessee. 3. In the first appeal, the assessee placed reliance on the provisions of Sec. 23(1)(c) and also stated that some of the properties were used

Amit Pal Singh, Agra vs. Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals), NFAC-Delhi

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes as indicated upon conclusion of hearing

ITA 85/AGR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 85/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बनाम/ Shri Amit Pal Singh Ito-1(1)(1) 11A, Old Idgah Colony, Agra Agra Vs. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Ayaps-6609-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anil Kumar Jain, Adv.- Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025 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 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 16-03-2023 In The Matter Of Penalty Levied By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 271(1)(C) For Rs.3.48 Lacs Vide Order Dated 26-06- 2018. The Assessee Failed To Make Any Representation During First Appeal & Accordingly, The Penalty Was Confirmed Against Which The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. The Ld. Ar Has Prayed For Another Opportunity Of Hearing Before Lower Authorities Which Has Been Opposed By Ld. Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Jain, Adv.- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 271(1)(c) for Rs.3.48 Lacs vide order dated 26-06- 2018. The assessee failed to make any representation during first appeal and accordingly, the penalty was confirmed against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR has prayed for another opportunity