← 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

Five Force Security Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Mohali vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh, Aayakar Bhawan

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 865/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Raj Pal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.865/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Five Force Security Solutions P. Ltd. Acit 2(1) बनाम/ Scf No 20, Top Floor Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Phase 5, Mohali (Punjab)-160055 Chandigarh 160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcf-4798-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Shubham (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 19-06-2024 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S 143(1) On 13-11-2022. The Cpc Made Disallowance Of Late Payment Of Pf / Esi Against Which The Assessee Preferred First Appeal. The Ld. Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal For Want Of Condonation Of Delay Of 27 Days & Also For Non-Prosecution Of Appeal On The Part Of The Assessee. Aggrieved, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us.

For Appellant: Shri Shubham (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

made disallowance of late payment of PF / ESI against which the assessee preferred first appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of condonation of delay of 27 days and also for non-prosecution of appeal on the part of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further

Shamalji Bhagavanji Mali, Banaskantha vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Palanpur

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

ITA 30/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Darshan B Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr. DR

appellant as defective and accordingly dismissing it on the ground of non-furnishing of documents as attached in the Assessment Order. 2. As the first appeal proceedings was ex-party and dismissed for the want of appeal documents, in the interest of substantial justice to the appellant, the matter

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 32(1) Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan Bkc vs. Arvind Shantilal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 542/MUM/2025[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: 11/03/2025
Section 68

Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2011-12, i.e. the first appeal being in relation to the quantum Arvind Shantilal Shah ITA Nos. 541 & 542/MUM/2025 assessment proceedings assessment proceedings, whereas the second appeal relates to whereas

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 32(1), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan Bkc vs. Arvind Shantilal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 541/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: 11/03/2025
Section 68

Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2011-12, i.e. the first appeal being in relation to the quantum Arvind Shantilal Shah ITA Nos. 541 & 542/MUM/2025 assessment proceedings assessment proceedings, whereas the second appeal relates to whereas

Sheetal Nilesh Mhatre, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Center, Delhi, Mumbai

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

ITA 6466/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Us & In This Regard Assessee Relied Upon Applications For Seeking Condonation Of Delay Has Mentioned As Under:

Section 250

unawareness of the timelines and causing the delay in filing the subsequent appeal. 4. I came to know that order against the first appeal was also passed on 08/09/2022. Immediately, I approach another Chartered Accountant who suggested me to file the appeal before the Hon'ble CIT- Appeal against

Canara Dist Primary Teachers Cooperative Society Limited, Ankola vs. Assessing Officer, Karwar

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 276/PAN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 276/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Canara District Primary Teachers Co-Operative Society, Ltd. Teachers Co-Op. Building, Gudigar Oni, Market Area, Ankola. Pan : Aabac7091H . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr S Manikandan [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)

prosecution are sufficiently explained. Considering the same, we are of the view that the appellant for sufficient cause was prevented from prosecuting the first appeal effectively. Therefore, we deem fit to accord one more opportunity to the appellant to prove its case on merits before the Ld. CIT(A), which

Hemlata Jain, Bhopal, M.P vs. The Assessment Unit, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 607/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

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

Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 10.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 11.03.2025 आदेश/ORDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 29.06.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi

Shanvaj Hussin, Khargone vs. ITO, Khargone

ITA 504/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Indore11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shanvaj Hussain, Income Tax Officer, 5, New Sabji Mandi, Khargone बनाम/ Khargone Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afkph8029P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2025

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 246Section 250Section 253Section 271BSection 44A

aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1064311688(1) dated 24.04.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) passed Under Section 250 of the Act, in first appeal which was preferred by the assessee in Page 1 of 11 Shanvaj Hussain ITA No. 504/Ind/2024 – AY 2014-15 terms of Section ... Rs.81,700/- was 0.5% of total turnover of Rs.1,63,75,394/-. 2.7 The assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned Penalty Order” preferred first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) u/s 246A of the Act who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the appeal of the Page 5 of 11 Shanvaj

Income Tax Officer, Indore vs. Sewa Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit Tillor Khurad, Indore

ITA 327/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 269TSection 271E

That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid penalty order of Ld. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Indore preferred first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in terms of Section 246A of the Act and which appeal by ‘impugned order’ was allowed in favour of the assessee on basis

Resonance Eduventures Limited, Kota vs. ACIT DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 672/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. (Thr. V.C)&For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153DSection 234DSection 250

various grounds of Rs.74,26,393/-. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A). In first appeal, the ld. CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by reducing the addition upto Rs. 49,18,939/- (on account of Office Expenses

Resonance Eduventures Limited, Kota vs. ACIT DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 671/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. (Thr. V.C)&For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153DSection 234DSection 250

various grounds of Rs.74,26,393/-. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A). In first appeal, the ld. CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by reducing the addition upto Rs. 49,18,939/- (on account of Office Expenses

Resonance Eduventures Limited, Kota vs. ACIT DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 670/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. (Thr. V.C)&For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153DSection 234DSection 250

various grounds of Rs.74,26,393/-. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A). In first appeal, the ld. CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by reducing the addition upto Rs.49,18,939/- (on account of Office Expenses, Student

Resonance Eduventures Limited, Kota vs. ACIT DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 669/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. (Thr. V.C)&For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153DSection 234DSection 250

various grounds of Rs.74,26,393/-. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A). In first appeal, the ld. CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by reducing the addition upto Rs. 49,18,939/- (on account of Office Expenses

Consolidated Infrastructure Compamy Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 6(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 462/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144(2)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Ernest Mawrie, Shillong vs. ITO W-1 Shillong, Shillong

Appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 167/GTY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati07 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: us, the Ld. AR stated that the impugned orders were based on incorrect assumptions of fact since the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ahead on the presumption that the assessee should have conclusively proven that he was covered under Section 10(26) of the Act. It has been averred that documentary evidence presented for supporting the claim under Section 10(26) of the Act was not considered at all.

Section 10(26)Section 144Section 250

seen to have assessed the income on estimate basis considering the deposits made in the bank account. 1.2 These matters were carried in first appeal where also the assessee could not succeed on the ground that the claim for exemption under Section 10(26) of the Act could

Ernest Mawrie, Shillong vs. ITO W-1 Shillong, Shillong

Appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 166/GTY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati07 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: us, the Ld. AR stated that the impugned orders were based on incorrect assumptions of fact since the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ahead on the presumption that the assessee should have conclusively proven that he was covered under Section 10(26) of the Act. It has been averred that documentary evidence presented for supporting the claim under Section 10(26) of the Act was not considered at all. 2.2 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below.

Section 10(26)Section 144Section 250

seen to have assessed the income on estimate basis considering the deposits made in the bank account. 1.2 These matters were carried in first appeal where also the assessee could not succeed on the ground that the claim for exemption under Section 10(26) of the Act could

Muthaiya Anandan, Madurai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corp Ward 1(1), Madurai

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

ITA 2985/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2985/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Muthaiya Anandan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 8, Manickam Pillai Street, Non Corporate Ward 1(1), Madakulam, Madurai 625 003. Madurai. [Pan:Afjpa4111N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 208 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 115B

Venkata Raman, C.A. submits that the Assessing Officer passed giving effect order, in pursuance of the directions of the ld. CIT(A) in the first appeal, held the income as computed by adopting the profit rate as income from other sources and applied the provisions of section 115BBE

Renu Jain, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5953/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Om Prakash Tantia, Vs. Dcit Plot No. 165-167, Sector-25, Central Circle – 25 Ballabgarh, Faridabad New Delhi Pan No.Abspt8332M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Nisha Jain Vs. Dcit C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate Central Circle – 25 F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi-110085 Pan No.Acspj6903H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Manoj Tantia Vs. Dcit C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate Central Circle – 25 F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi-110085 Pan No.Aafpt4583L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153D

justice for non confrontation of relied upon material (statements etc) and lack of cross examination being offered to assessee us pleaded at asst. and first appeal stage. 3. No incriminating material unearthed from assessee's own search action u/s 132: That both the assessment orders of Ld AO and first

M/S. Abs Fujitsu General Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 845/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar J Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 37

answered in favour of the Assessee & accordingly it is. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the delay brooked in filing the first Appeal needs to be condoned and in the peculiar facts of the case, the matter be remitted to the portals of ITAT for consideration

Kabbur Poorva Bhag Vividoddhesha Prathamik Grameen Krushi S Sangh Ni, Kabbur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Nipani

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 304/PAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 304/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Kabbur Purvbhag Prathamik Krushi Pattin Sahakari Sangh Niyamit At Post: Kabbur, Tal.:Chikodi, Dist.:Belgaum. Pan : Aadat9192J . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Nippani. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr S Manikandan [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 04/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/03/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Assessee Is In Appeal Against Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069069880(1) Dt. 25/09/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereafter] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’ Hereafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 10/03/2021 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt. Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereafter] For Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’ Hereafter].

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr S Manikandan [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251Section 80P(2)

laws relied by both the rival parties. At the outset we note that, when the matter of 46% disallowance of 80P(2) travelled in first appeal, the Ld. NFAC considered the material placed before him and without conclusively adjudicating it u/s 251 of the Act, re-directed the same