“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

Vishnu Dutt L/H Sh. Mool Chand, Mathura vs. I.T.O 1(3)(5), Mathura

The appeal stand allowed as indicated upon conclusion of hearing

ITA 407/AGR/2017[ 2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Agarwal, CA- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

which Rs.10 Lacs was withdrawn earlier. The Ld. AO added the remaining amount of Rs17.13 Lacs to the income of the assessee. In first appeal, it was reiterated that the assessee sold agricultural land and entered into agreement for sale. The copy of agreement dated 27- 04-2005 made

Banti Devi, Kotputli vs. ITO War 5(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 1341/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Anand Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh choudhary, Addl. CIT a

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 69A

made an addition of Rs.18,19,628/- in the hands of the assesse as unexplained cash deposited with UCO Bank Ltd. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO holding as under:- ‘’5.1…….. On perusal of the same, it is seen that there were

Banti Devi, Kotputli vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 1326/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Anand Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh choudhary, Addl. CIT a

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 69A

Ramdas Pandharinath Kale(HUF), Pune vs. ITO, Ward-12(3), Pune

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

ITA 246/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.246/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ramdas Pandharinath Kale V The Income Tax Officer, (Huf), S Ward-12(3), Pune. Wagjholi, Kalewasti, Kasanand Road, Haveli, Pune – 412207. Pan: Aaqhr7916A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Abhay Avachat – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 27/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Delhi U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 19.10.2024 For The A.Y.2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Each Ground Is Taken Without Prejudice To Each Other.

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

find that the assessee has furnished an affidavit wherein he has described all the ITA No.246/PUN/2025 [A] circumstances which led to file the first appeal belatedly. A perusal of affidavit makes it clear that the assessee informed the consultant well within time & also paid the challan of appeal fees well ... reasons the appeal Form No.35 could not be uploaded on the income tax portal which unfortunately resulted in 46 days delay in filing of first appeal. We find force in the arguments of the counsel of the assessee that the delay was unintentional & there was no malafide intention in filing

Uma Jagdish Hiremath, Pune vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Pune

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

ITA 188/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke

Section 144Section 147Section 148

filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC will be on or before 27.02.2019 and in the instant case the assessee has already filed first appeal on 22.02.2019 before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the same appears to be within prescribed time limits. Considering the totality of the facts

Shri. Omkareshwar Devasthan Charitable Trust., Jalgaon vs. ITO (Exemption) - 1(2), Nashik

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

ITA 1714/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1714/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Omkareshwar Vs. Ito (Exemption)-1(2), Devasthan Charitable Trust, Nashik. C/O M. V. Medicals Opp. Telephone Building, Jalgaon- 425001. Pan : Aafts7927R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket M. Joshi Revenue By : Shri Chandra Vijay Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Ludhiana [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Charitable Trust Furnished Its Return Of Income Prior To The Due Date Mentioned U/S 139 Of The It Act. However, The Audit Report In Form 10B Could Not Be Filed Along With Return Of Income But The Same Was Filed On 11-11-2017 & Therefore The Cpc In The Intimation Dated 27-03-2019

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay

Section 11Section 139Section 143(1)Section 154

assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is unjustified. Ld. AR submitted before us that the delay in filing first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) was due to the wrong advise provided by the earlier counsel, who suggested to file application for rectification

Anand Chhaya Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(1)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 600/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

record. 4. We have considered the submissions made before us by the assessee explaining the long inordinate delay of 3257 days in filing the first appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Assessee has furnished corroborative documentary evidences to establish its factual position of having not received copy of intimation, either ... above, if we examine the facts then it would reveal that there is a delay of 3257 days in filing of the first appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). In its submissions before the ld. CIT(A), assessee has explained the reasons which prevented him in filing

Anand Chhaya Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(1)(6), Mumbai

ITA 599/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

Anand Chhaya Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(1)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 598/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

Anand Chhaya Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(1)6, Mumbai

ITA 597/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

Pjs Securities LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward, 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6840/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

genuine Loss: Rs.25,03,775/-)” 5. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition as well as the assessment order by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, in spite of affording six opportunities eventually made no compliance. Therefore, in the constrained 5 M/s. PJS Securities LLP circumstances

Ambaji Avenues Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 9(1) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5216/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Malpani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the reopening of the case u/s 147/148 of the Act, as well as the addition on merit by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who not only affirmed the addition on merit but also the reopening of the case u/s 147/148

ITO-10(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Navkiran Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2908/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250Section 68

unexplained and added the same in the total income of the Assessee u/s 68 of the Act. 4. The Assessee, being aggrieved, preferred the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner and submitted that before the AO in order to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the parties and genuineness

Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Jalaun vs. ITO Examption Agra, Agra

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 109/AGR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SMT ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

Supported the impugned order and prayed to dismiss assessee’s appeal. 4. It transpires from the perusal of records that the assessee filed first appeal on 23.07.2019 against the intimation dated 10.03.2016. The limitation period for filing an appeal before learned

Pankaj Mani Kulshreshtha, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 19/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT a

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

trading addition and Rs.6,80,800/- as unexplained cash deposit treating it as deemed income u/s 69A of the Act. However, in first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee confirming the action of the AO as no controverting material was supplied by the assessee

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Skyline Engg. Contracts (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2705/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2705/Del/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 बनाम Dcit, Skyline Engg. Contracts (India) P. Ltd., Circle 23(2), Vs. Plot No.4, Kehar Singh Estate, Room No.248, Said Ul-Ajaiab, Saket, New Delhi. C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Pan No.Aaacs8955P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 69C

provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax 3 Rules, 1962 and made an addition of Rs.3,20,250/-. In first appeal Ld. CIT(A) has reduced the disallowance to Rs.33,500/- and deleted the balance amount of disallowance made by Assessing Officer. 5. Before ... considering the submissions of the assessee, Assessing Officer has made the disallowances u/s 69C of the Act all these expenditures as un- explained. In first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) though has accepted that these companies are indulge in the accommodation entry the business, however, has deleted the additions

Mantri Bros, Neemuch vs. Assessing Officer, Income-Tax

Appeal is allowed

ITA 656/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 69ASection 69C

Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 17.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement__| 26.03.2025 od’1/O RDER Per B.M. Biyani, AM: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 04.07.2024 passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 17.03.2023 passed ... 656/Ind/2024 - A.Y. 2018-19 to be unexplained expenses u% 69C of the Act. Penalty u’S 271AAC of the Act are initiated separately.” During first-appeal, the CIT(A) approved the conclusions of AO and upheld addition. 4. Before us, Ld. AR for assessee made following contentions and claimed that

Subhash Chandra Agrawal, Jhabua vs. Income Tax Officer ITO-1, O/P District Telecom Engineer, Bsnl Adminstrative Building, Ratanpura, Jhabua

ITA 551/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

assessee is aggrieved by order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2024-25/1065846373(1) dated 20.06.2024 of Ld. CIT(A), passed U/s 250 of the Act in first appeal preferred u/s 246A of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the Page 1 of 9 Subhash Chandra Agrawal A.Y. 2017-18 “impugned order ... which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Assessment Order”. 2.9 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned Assessment order” prefers first appeal in terms of section 246A of the Act before CIT(A) who by the “Impugned Order” has dismissed the appeal of the assessee

Pintu Tillani, Burhanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Burhanpur

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 321/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 253Section 68

dated 11/12/2019 which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Assessment Order”. 2.9 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Assessment Order” prefers first Appeal u/s 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) by the “Impugned Order” has dimissed the appeal

Kusumlata Garg, Indore vs. DCIT ACIT 3 (1) Indore, Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 298/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement 26.03.2025 smez1/O RDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 06.03.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated ... addition of Rs. 6,39,120/- on account of rental income not offered for taxation. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal but did not get any success. Now, the assessee has come before us in next appeal assailing the orders of lower authorities. Ground No. 1: 3. This