“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

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

Appeals stand allowed

ITA 419/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

Oasis Commercial Pvt. Ltd, Vill. Jatwar District Ambala vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Income Tax Department

The appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 414/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

Sh. Surinder Paul Singh, Derabassi vs. ITO Ward-5(2), Chandigarh

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 487/CHANDI/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.487/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Surinder Paul Singh Ito Ward 5(2) Village Dera Jagadhari Chandigarh-160017 बनाम/ Vs. Ward No17, Post Office Derabassi, Punjab-140507 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aqhps-6902-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. Aman Parti (Advocate) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 Chandigarh [Cit(A)] Dated 03-09-2019 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 31-03-2014. 2. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 936 Days In The Appeal. The Ld. Ar Sought Condonation Of Delay & Tabulated That Excluding Covid-9 Pandemic Lockdown Period, The Effective Delay Is Only For 132 Days (02-

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. AmanFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

Lacs and accordingly, the balance amount of Rs.26.61 Lacs was added to the income of the assessee and the assessment was framed. 3.4 During first appeal, the assessee’s submissions were subjected to remand proceedings wherein the assessee submitted that it was holding 26 acres of land in Village Dera

Shri Sachin Goyal, Ludhiana vs. Addl. CIT, R-VII, Ludhiana

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

ITA 1490/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1489/Chandi/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1490/Chandi/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Sachin Goyal Acit- Circle-7 बनाम/ Vs. 29/1, The Mall Ludhiana. Ludhiana 141 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abwpg-3117-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri Pankaj Bhalla (Ca) & Vk Bhalla (Ca)- Ld Ars. ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010- 11 & 2011-12 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2010-11 Which Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ludhiana [Cit(A)] Dated 20-08-2019 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 20-03-

For Appellant: S/Shri Pankaj Bhalla (CA) and VK BhallaFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 46A

Facts in this year are substantially the same. The Ld. AO made similar disallowance u/s 40A(3) for Rs.14.40 Lacs which was confirmed in first appeal. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. Facts being pari-materia the same, taking the same view, this issue stand restored back

Shri Sachin Goyal, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, C-7, Ludhiana

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

ITA 1489/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Pankaj Bhalla (CA) and VK BhallaFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 46A

DCIT, Circle-2, Nagpur vs. Naresh Laxminarayan Grover, Nagpur

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

ITA 526/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Aryan GroverFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") holding short term capital gain considered to be not genuine. 5. During first appeal proceedings, the learned CIT(A) granted relief by holding as follows:– “5.1.2. Thus, on perusal of submissions made by the Appellant and the assessment order

DCIT, Circle-2, Nagpur vs. Naresh Laxminarayan Grover, Nagpur

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

ITA 525/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Aryan GroverFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

DCIT, Circle-2, Nagpur vs. Naresh Laxminarayan Grover, Nagpur

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

ITA 524/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Aryan GroverFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Farhat Khatun, Chhoti Khagul vs. CIT Appeal, Income Tax

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 493/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 21.03.2026 smez1/O RDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 31.10.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated ... assessee is aggrieved by addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- u/s 69A and carried matter in first-appeal. 3. During first-appeal, the assessee made submissions which the CIT(A) considered. Ultimately, the CIT(A) upheld addition by passing following order: “6.1 Ground No 2 is directed against the Assessing

Khandwa Industries Private Limited, Indore vs. ACIT, Khandwa

Appeal is allowed

ITA 309/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2017-18 Khandwa Industries Pvt. Ld., Acit, G-2 Amans Corner, Khandwa बनाम/ 301, Goyal Vihar, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aadck4103G Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

Date of Hearing 11.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 09.02.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Addl/JCIT (A)-12, Mumbai [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated ... account of suppression of sales and (ii) disallowance of Rs. 41,39,084/- u/s 40A(2). Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal whereupon the CIT(A) deleted the addition on account of suppression of sales but upheld the disallowance u/s 40A(2). Still aggrieved, the assessee has come

Pooja Grover, Allahabad vs. DCIT, Cir-2, Allahabad

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

ITA 140/ALLD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 251Section 69A

producing the creditors in person was not fulfilled and their ITRs etc. were also not furnished even in the remand proceedings in the first appeal. Learned D.R. further submitted that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof on her u/s 68, therefore, the finding recorded by the Assessing

Shri Ganapati Devasthan Trust, Baramati vs. DCIT(Exemption Circle), Pune

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

ITA 2313/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Ganapati Devasthan Trust Dcit Siddheshwar Galli, Baramati, Vs. (Exemption Circle), Maharashtra – 413102 Pune Pan: Aants4193D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sharad A Vaze Department By : Shri Ambarnath Bhimrao Khule (Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-03-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A VazeFor Respondent: Shri Ambarnath Bhimrao Khule

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 147Section 148

DCIT (2020) 207 TTJ (Pune) 771, he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that as the proceedings in the first appeal are continuation of the assessment proceedings, there can be no impediment on the assessee in making a lawful claim before

Strides Pharma Science Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 15(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5721/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5721/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) Strides Pharma Science Limited V/S. Ito 15(3)(2), बनाम Aayakar Bhavan, New 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 Vashi, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra-400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Blrs03808A .. Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Mr. R. A. Dhyani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 16.01.2025 20.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / Order Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Dated 06.09.2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14ASection 250Section 35Section 37(1)

claimed u/s 37(1) of the Act and the disallowance was also confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in first appeal. 7.2 Before us, Ld. AR has submitted as under: Issue is Squarely covered by numerous judgements, including those of the Honourable High courts [Ref. CIT. v.Biocon ... Accordingly, Ld. AO proceeded to disallow the difference of Rs. 10,90,49,268/- u/s 32AB of the Act. In first appeal, Ld. CIT(A) also held that the assessee is not eligible to claim weighted deduction on the expenses over and above the amount certified by the DSIR, being

Sanghvi Foods Private Limited, Indore vs. DCIT 4(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 662/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 43B

which was passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act. 2.3 That the assessee being Aggrieved by the Impugned Assessment order (supra) preferred first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “Impugned Order” has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Page ... given. Under these facts we deem fit and proper to set aside the “Impugned order” as Ld. AR (CA) has undertaken to participate in first appeal before Ld. CIT(A). 5. Order 5.1 In the premises “Impugned order” is set aside as and by way of remand back

Adim Jati Sewa Sahakari Samiti Marya Khedi Sawligad, Khedisawligarh (Betul) vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department (Faceless Unit)

ITA 654/IND/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 194CSection 194HSection 250Section 253Section 80P

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI

Adim Jati Sewa Sahakari Samiti Marya Khedi Sawligad, Khedisawligarh (Betul) vs. Assessment Unit, Faceless

ITA 653/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 194CSection 194HSection 250Section 253Section 80P

Kendriya Vidyalaya Barwani M P, Barwani vs. DCIT CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 647/IND/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Mar 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 154Section 154rSection 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 246ASection 250Section 253

corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That as per the data available in ITBA, the First appeal in terms of section 246A of the Act was filed online on 05.03.2024. 2.2 Facts giving rise to he aforesaid First Appeal under ... case is neither legal nor proper. 2.6 That the assessee challenged the aforesaid issues (P-2 of appeal memo) by filing a first appeal before CIT(A) u/s 246A of Page 3 of 9 Kendriya Vidalaya Barwani A.Y. 2014-15 the Act on broad issues of late filing fees

Nahar Singh Rathour, Rathour Parisar Veer Park Roa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Neemuch, Neemuch

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 587/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2012-13 Nahar Singh Rathour, Ito Rathour Parisar, Neemuch बनाम/ Veer Park Road, Vs. Neemuch (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Agdpr1469D Assessee By Shri Harshit Choukse, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.03.2025

Section 143(3)Section 251(2)

Date of Hearing 18.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 19.03.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 14.06.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 24.12.2019 passed ... Nahar Singh Rathour ITA No. 587/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13 2. Ld. AR for assessee submits that the CIT(A), while conducting first- appeal, has sent notices of hearing to e-mail address: amitesh@gmail.com although the assessee has specifically mentioned email address: amitesh@rathoure.org in the space provided in Form

Devendra Gupta, Bhopal vs. ITO-1(2), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 583/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 19.03.2025 sez1/O RDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 07.06.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated ... Page 1 of 3 Devendra Gupta ITA No. 583/Ind/2024 - AY 2016-17 2. Ld. AR for assessee submits that the CIT(A), while conducting first- appeal, has sent notices of hearing to e-mail address: adapg9833e@gmail.com/dgenterprises38@gmail.com although the assessee has specifically mentioned email address: chawla_kishore@hotmail.com in the space

Parshavnath Associates, Kota vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, both the appeal filed by separate assessee are allowed in terms of the above observations

ITA 1358/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv.&For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT a

Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 69C

includes income chargeable to tax as per provision of section 115BBE of the Act. 6. Aggrieved, from the said order of assessment, assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) after hearing the contention of the assessee has dismissed the appeal of the assessee