← 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

M/S. Tesla Transformers Ltd., Bhopal vs. ACIT-3(1), Bhopal

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 515/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 145(2)

Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 26.03.2025 amet /ORDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 29.11.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated ... income from duty drawback, and (ii) disallowance of Rs. 25,40,234/- on account of personal expenses. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal whereupon the CIT(A) upheld the addition of Rs. 18,32,561/- but deleted the disallowance of Rs. 25,40,234/- and this way partly

Sunil Waman Chaudhary, Thane vs. DCIT Central Circle-2, Thane

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

ITA 6071/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Akash Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 69A

interest of justice and play and more importantly, when the assessee has cured the defect which formed the basis of dismissal of first appeal by ld. CIT(A), we find it appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for denovo meritorious adjudication

Mahendra Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 654/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sarwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

made the addition of Rs.5,76,262/- u/s 69C on account of alleged unexplained expenditure @ 6% for obtaining these alleged bogus LTCG. 2.2 In first appeal before ld. CIT (A), assessee has filed detailed written submission and documents. However, the ld. CIT(A) has summarily rejected the same

State Bank of India, Zonal Office(15875), Pathankot vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS-I), Chandigarh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 653/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(Appeals) NFAC, Delhi, has erred in having not decided the Ground No. 1 taken in first appeal before the first appellate authority challenging the legality of order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer on ground of limitation.” 6. Briefly the facts

State Bank of India, Amritsar vs. Joint Commissioner of India (in-Situ), Ludhiana

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 643/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(Appeals) NFAC, Delhi, has erred in having not decided the Ground No. 1 taken in first appeal before the first appellate authority challenging the legality of order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer on ground of limitation.” 6. Briefly the facts

State Bank of India, Samb Branch, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS-1), Chandigarh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 626/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(Appeals) NFAC, Delhi, has erred in having not decided the Ground No. 1 taken in first appeal before the first appellate authority challenging the legality of order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer on ground of limitation.” 6. Briefly the facts

State Bank of India, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS-1), Chandigarh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 623/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(Appeals) NFAC, Delhi, has erred in having not decided the Ground No. 1 taken in first appeal before the first appellate authority challenging the legality of order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer on ground of limitation.” 6. Briefly the facts

State Bank of India, Chandigarh vs. DCIT/ACIT (TDS), Chandigarh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 622/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(Appeals) NFAC, Delhi, has erred in having not decided the Ground No. 1 taken in first appeal before the first appellate authority challenging the legality of order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer on ground of limitation.” 6. Briefly the facts

State Bank of India, Panchkula vs. DCIT/ACIT-TDS, Chandigarh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 493/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(Appeals) NFAC, Delhi, has erred in having not decided the Ground No. 1 taken in first appeal before the first appellate authority challenging the legality of order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer on ground of limitation.” 6. Briefly the facts

State Bank of India, Chandigarh vs. DCIT/ACIT-TDS, Chandigarh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 173/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(Appeals) NFAC, Delhi, has erred in having not decided the Ground No. 1 taken in first appeal before the first appellate authority challenging the legality of order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer on ground of limitation.” 6. Briefly the facts

State Bank of India, Chandigarh vs. ITO (TDS-I), Chandigarh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 376/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(Appeals) NFAC, Delhi, has erred in having not decided the Ground No. 1 taken in first appeal before the first appellate authority challenging the legality of order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer on ground of limitation.” 6. Briefly the facts

State Bank of India, Chandigarh vs. ITO (TDS-I), Chandigarh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 375/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(Appeals) NFAC, Delhi, has erred in having not decided the Ground No. 1 taken in first appeal before the first appellate authority challenging the legality of order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer on ground of limitation.” 6. Briefly the facts

Luminous Venture Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax of Central Tax, Mumbai

ITA 1039/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Bansal, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. D/R

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ, मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

Luminous Venture Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4(1), Mumbai

ITA 1038/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Bansal, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. D/R

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ, मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

Chandru Shewakram Watwani HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 24(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6661/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 24ASection 250

could not have dealt with the merits of the matter. The Hon’ble Apex Court somehow condoned the delay of 150 days in preferring first appeal, subject to the payment of Rs. 25,000/- by way of cost to 3 Chandru Shewakram Watwani HUF the respondent. For ready reference ... granted. This appeal challenges the order dated 11.06.2019 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short, ‘the National Commission’) rejecting First Appeal No.610 of 2019. There was delay of 150 days in preferring the First Appeal which was not condoned by the order under appeal

Ameesh Chandrakant Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO, WD 24(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6264/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhshri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 254(1)

grounds of appeal. Despite the fact that assessee has filed written submission and the relevant evidence to substantiate the grounds of appeal raised in first appeal, the Id CIT(A) took shortcut route to dismiss the appeal in limine. So far as delay in filing the appeal before

Late Shri Wirendra Singh Bolia, Manik Bagh Road Indore vs. Jurisdictional AO, Indore/Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Indore/Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 712/IND/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi**

Section 147

Date of Hearing | | 20.03.2025 | | | Date of Pronouncement | | 24.03.2025 | | # आदेश **/ O R D E R** ### **Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:** Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 12.08.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi ["CIT(A)"] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 30.03.2022 passed ... grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36). - 2. On hearing learned Representatives of both sides, it emerges that the CIT(A) has decided first-appeal *ex-parte* qua assessee for the reason that the assessee did not make any submission before him despite opportunities given vide notices dated

Five Star Impex, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 4(2), Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 20/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalfive Star Impex, F-939, Road No. 14R, Vki Area, Jaipur 302021 Pan No.:Aabff2606A ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(2), Jaipur ...... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. S. B. Natani, C.A, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Arvind Kumar, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 144Section 145Section 250Section 250(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 68

novo assessment. As far as the issues involved in the ex-parte assessment, those have already been addressed by the assessee during the first appeal stage and rather there was a complete opportunity to the AO for his remarks and objections and thereafter the assessee also filed its rejoinder

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Oasis Commercial Private Limited, Chandigarh

The appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 544/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.414/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Oasis Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Dcit- Circle-2 Village Jatwar Tehsil Naraingarh बनाम/ Central Revenue Building District Ambala-134201 Opp. Bvm School Vs. Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana 141001 & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.544/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit- Circle-2 M/S Oasis Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Central Revenue Building Village Jatwar Tehsil Naraingarh बनाम/ Vs. Opp. Bvm School District Ambala-134201 Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana 141001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-8412-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Kusum Bansal (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kusum Bansal (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

doubted the genuineness of the loan and ultimately, added the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. 3.3 The assessee’s submissions during first appeal were subjected to remand proceedings wherein assessee furnished additional evidences. The remand report was confronted to the assessee and the assessee maintained that the credits ... nothing but interest disallowance u/r 8D(2)(ii) for Rs.37.12 Lacs and indirect expense disallowance u/r 8D(2)(iii) for Rs.3.65 Lacs. 4.2 During first appeal, the assessee raised a plea that it had sufficient own funds to make the investments. However, going by the fact that similar disallowance

Kailash Printmedia Private Limited, Hamirpur vs. JCIT, Mandi Range, Mandi

Appeals stand allowed

ITA 420/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Patyal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

behalf of the director. However, Ld. AO rejected the explanation of the assessee and levied penalty of Rs.2.10 Lacs against the assessee. 4. During first appeal, the assessee stated that it was in dire need of funds to run the business and accordingly, small amounts were received from directors