← 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

Swatantryavir Savarkar Nagari Sahakari Patanstha Maryadit, Nashik vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2798/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2796 & 2798/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Swatantryavir Savarkar Nagari Vs. Assessment Unit, Sahakari Patanstha Maryadit, Income Tax Department. 1, Javer Bhuvan, Opposite Rathi Sadan, Subnash Road, Nashik Road, Nashik- 422101. Pan : Aaqcs3784G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 18.11.2024 U/S 271Aac(1) & 21.11.2024 U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The It Act Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Respectively. 2. Since The Facts Are Identical & Both The Appeals Were Heard Together, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271ASection 69A

assessee at Rs.91,275/-. The above assessed income includes unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of Rs.1,38,28,960/-. Since the assessee furnished first appeal belatedly with a delay of 132 days, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay. It is this order against which

Swatantryavir Savarkar Nagari Sahakari Patanstha Maryadit, Nashik vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2796/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2796 & 2798/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Swatantryavir Savarkar Nagari Vs. Assessment Unit, Sahakari Patanstha Maryadit, Income Tax Department. 1, Javer Bhuvan, Opposite Rathi Sadan, Subnash Road, Nashik Road, Nashik- 422101. Pan : Aaqcs3784G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 18.11.2024 U/S 271Aac(1) & 21.11.2024 U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The It Act Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Respectively. 2. Since The Facts Are Identical & Both The Appeals Were Heard Together, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271ASection 69A

assessee at Rs.91,275/-. The above assessed income includes unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of Rs.1,38,28,960/-. Since the assessee furnished first appeal belatedly with a delay of 132 days, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay. It is this order against which

Shanayaa Industries Private Limited, Panvel vs. Income Tax Officer, Panvel

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

ITA 2279/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2279/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Shanayaa Industries Private Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Limited, Tax Department. H.No.1659, Survey No.5, Kirwali Village, Opp. Santosh Hotel, Panvel, Raigarh- 410208. Pan : Aazcs6034L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing 25.02.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.08.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. When The Matter Had Come Up For Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Any Adjournment Application Was Filed Despite Due Service Of Notice Of Hearing. From Perusal Of The Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 68

least last 3 notices of hearing issued by the Assessing Officer which resulted in additions to income & impugned assessment order. Even in first appeal, Ld. CIT(A) granted not less than 3 opportunities for supporting the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee but the assessee remained non compliant. Even

DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chenai vs. C.Vijaya Baskar, Pudukottai

ITA 702/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri Nithyaesh Natraj, Vaibav R. VenkateshFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Srinivas (Sr. Standing Counsel for
Section 143(3)

quarry license holders, Ld. AO disallowed quarry expenses as claimed by the assessee during AYs 2011-12 to 2018-19. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred first appeal against the same wherein the assessee assailed the said disallowance by way of elaborate written submissions. The assessee also pointed out that the disallowance ... aforesaid estimated income was added in the hands of the assessee for various years. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the impugned additions in first appeal. The assessee filed elaborate written submissions assailing the impugned additions which have been extracted in impugned order in Para-60 of the impugned order. The adjudication

DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chenai vs. C.Vijaya Baskar, Pudukottai

In the result, ITA Nos.695 to 702/Chny/2023 stands dismissed

ITA 700/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.695/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.696/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.697/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.698/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.699/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.700/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.701/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.702/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit Shri C. Vijayabaskar बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1) #14/28-1, Sowrastra Street, Chennai. Illupur, Pudukottai-622 102. Vs.

For Appellant: S/Shri Nithyaesh Natraj, Vaibav R. VenkateshFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Srinivas (Sr. Standing Counsel for department)- Ld. Sr. Counsel
Section 143(3)

quarry license holders, Ld. AO disallowed quarry expenses as claimed by the assessee during AYs 2011-12 to 2018-19. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred first appeal against the same wherein the assessee assailed the said disallowance by way of elaborate written submissions. The assessee also pointed out that the disallowance ... aforesaid estimated income was added in the hands of the assessee for various years. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the impugned additions in first appeal. The assessee filed elaborate written submissions assailing the impugned additions which have been extracted in impugned order in Para-60 of the impugned order. The adjudication

DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chenai vs. C.Vijaya Baskar, Pudukottai

In the result, ITA Nos.695 to 702/Chny/2023 stands dismissed

ITA 697/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.695/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.696/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.697/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.698/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.699/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.700/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.701/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.702/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit Shri C. Vijayabaskar बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1) #14/28-1, Sowrastra Street, Chennai. Illupur, Pudukottai-622 102. Vs.

For Appellant: S/Shri Nithyaesh Natraj, Vaibav R. VenkateshFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Srinivas (Sr. Standing Counsel for department)- Ld. Sr. Counsel
Section 143(3)

quarry license holders, Ld. AO disallowed quarry expenses as claimed by the assessee during AYs 2011-12 to 2018-19. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred first appeal against the same wherein the assessee assailed the said disallowance by way of elaborate written submissions. The assessee also pointed out that the disallowance ... aforesaid estimated income was added in the hands of the assessee for various years. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the impugned additions in first appeal. The assessee filed elaborate written submissions assailing the impugned additions which have been extracted in impugned order in Para-60 of the impugned order. The adjudication

DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chenai vs. C.Vijaya Baskar, Pudukottai

In the result, ITA Nos.695 to 702/Chny/2023 stands dismissed

ITA 696/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri Nithyaesh Natraj, Vaibav R. VenkateshFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Srinivas (Sr. Standing Counsel for
Section 143(3)

quarry license holders, Ld. AO disallowed quarry expenses as claimed by the assessee during AYs 2011-12 to 2018-19. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred first appeal against the same wherein the assessee assailed the said disallowance by way of elaborate written submissions. The assessee also pointed out that the disallowance ... aforesaid estimated income was added in the hands of the assessee for various years. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the impugned additions in first appeal. The assessee filed elaborate written submissions assailing the impugned additions which have been extracted in impugned order in Para-60 of the impugned order. The adjudication

DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chenai vs. C.Vijaya Baskar, Pudukottai

In the result, ITA Nos.695 to 702/Chny/2023 stands dismissed

ITA 695/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri Nithyaesh Natraj, Vaibav R. VenkateshFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Srinivas (Sr. Standing Counsel for
Section 143(3)

quarry license holders, Ld. AO disallowed quarry expenses as claimed by the assessee during AYs 2011-12 to 2018-19. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred first appeal against the same wherein the assessee assailed the said disallowance by way of elaborate written submissions. The assessee also pointed out that the disallowance ... aforesaid estimated income was added in the hands of the assessee for various years. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the impugned additions in first appeal. The assessee filed elaborate written submissions assailing the impugned additions which have been extracted in impugned order in Para-60 of the impugned order. The adjudication

Shri Nitin Aima, Shrinagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Srinagar

ITA 83/ASR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 75Section 80

export of such articles or things or from services, as envisaged in section 10AA of the Act 61. 5. The matter was carried in first appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) and the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal by passing a well-reasoned order: “(relevant portion is reproduced

Rakesh Bhojani, Siyaganj Indore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -4(1), Indore, Cgo Complex

Appeal is allowed

ITA 811/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Gupta

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 30.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2025 smez1/O RDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 05.11.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated ... period, and (ii) addition of Rs. 2,50,37,941/- u/s 68 on account of unexplained unsecured loans. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A) but did not get any success. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us. 3. Although the assessee

ACIT-1(1), Indore vs. Bhatia Coal Washeries Limited, Maharashtra

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 389/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI B.M. BIYANI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Date of Hearing 08.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 11.08.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated ... order dated 23.04.2021 after making certain additions and thereby determining total income at Rs. 20,08,82,375/-. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal to CIT(A) and succeded partly. Now, the revenue has come in this appeal assailing the order of CIT(A). 3. The grounds raised

The H.P.State Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Sirmour vs. ITO(TDS), Solan

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 127/CHANDI/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assesseee Is Aggrieved By The Common Order Bearing Number Itba/Apl/M/250/2019- 20/1021304437(1) Dt. 25/11/2019 Of Cit(A) Shimla, H.P. Passed U/S 250 Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-17 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2015 To 31/03/2016. 2. At The Outset The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Above Appeals Are Barred By Limitation By 02 Days.

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Doger, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(i)Section 194A(3)(v)Section 19iSection 201Section 201(1)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

demand by the Income Tax Department upon the assessee bank. 4.5 That the assesse being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dt. 09/01/2019 preferred a first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) u/s 246A of the Act and by “impugned order” the aforesaid demand was partly confirmed and the assessee bank appeal ... illegal, bad in law and not proper and that the same deserves to be set aside. It was submitted that assessee bank in first appeal was granted partial relief for some of individual deductee cases by remanding back these such cases to Ld. ITO TDS for verification and in some

The H.P.State Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Sirmour vs. ITO(TDS), Solan

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Assessee are

ITA 126/CHANDI/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sachin Doger, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 194ASection 194A(3)Section 194A(3)(v)Section 19iSection 201Section 201(1)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

demand by the Income Tax Department upon the assessee bank. 4.5 That the assesse being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dt. 09/01/2019 preferred a first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) u/s 246A of the Act and by "impugned order” the aforesaid demand was partly confirmed and the assessee bank appeal ... illegal, bad in law and not proper and that the same deserves to be set aside. It was submitted that assessee bank in first appeal was granted partial relief for some of individual deductee cases by remanding back these such cases to Ld. ITO TDS for verification and in some

The H.P.State Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Sirmour vs. ITO(TDS), Solan

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Assessee are

ITA 125/CHANDI/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Sachin Doger, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 194ASection 194A(3)Section 194A(3)(v)Section 19iSection 201Section 201(1)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

demand by the Income Tax Department upon the assessee bank. 4.5 That the assesse being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dt. 09/01/2019 preferred a first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) u/s 246A of the Act and by "impugned order” the aforesaid demand was partly confirmed and the assessee bank appeal ... illegal, bad in law and not proper and that the same deserves to be set aside. It was submitted that assessee bank in first appeal was granted partial relief for some of individual deductee cases by remanding back these such cases to Ld. ITO TDS for verification and in some

Chhababai Maruti Gadute, Pune vs. ITO Ward 12(3), Pune

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

ITA 1975/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 263Section 68Section 69

r.w.s. 263 of the IT Act was completed ex-parte since the assessee did not participated in the assessment proceedings. 3 3. Since the first appeal was filed belatedly i.e. with the delay of 24 days, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the same without condoning the delay of 24 days

Gautam Jayant Sopal, Kolhapur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Kolhapur

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

ITA 1953/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(1)

order dated 13.10.2022. A demand of Rs.2,37,350/- was raised in the above intimation order. 4. Since the assessee presented the first appeal belatedly before Ld. CIT(A), with a delay of 258 days, the same was dismissed without condoning the above delay. It is this order against which ... confirm the same. 7. We have heard Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find that the first appeal was filed belatedly with a delay of 258 days before Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the same without condoning

Dhirendra Mohanlal Gupta, Santacruz East vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(1)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6505/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 144Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(C)Section 68

made by the Ld. AR. 10. In view of the above facts, we are of the view that the delay in filing of the first appeal as explained by the assessee is on account of a reasonable cause. Accordingly, we deem it proper to restore the matter to the file

Dhirendra Mohanlal Gupta, Santacruz East vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(1)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6504/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 144Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(C)Section 68

made by the Ld. AR. 10. In view of the above facts, we are of the view that the delay in filing of the first appeal as explained by the assessee is on account of a reasonable cause. Accordingly, we deem it proper to restore the matter to the file

Dhirendra Mohanlal Gupta, Santacruz East vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(1)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6503/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 144Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(C)Section 68

made by the Ld. AR. 10. In view of the above facts, we are of the view that the delay in filing of the first appeal as explained by the assessee is on account of a reasonable cause. Accordingly, we deem it proper to restore the matter to the file

Dhirendra Mohanlal Gupta, Santacruz East vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(1)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6502/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 144Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(C)Section 68

made by the Ld. AR. 10. In view of the above facts, we are of the view that the delay in filing of the first appeal as explained by the assessee is on account of a reasonable cause. Accordingly, we deem it proper to restore the matter to the file