“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

Graphtech Exim Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT Cen Cir 3 Jaipur, Lic Building Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1441/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Mrs. Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, JCIT-DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 68

just after declaration of demonetization and disallowance of proportionate interest of ₹3634372/-36(1)(iii) of the Act. 2.2 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the by sustainin the addition made by the AO. 2.3 During the course of hearing

Shree Coimbatore Gujarat Samaj, Coimbatore vs. DCIT (Exemption) Coimbatore, Coimbatore

ITA 2210/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2210/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shree Coimbatore Gujarati Samaj, 362, Mettupalayam Road, Rs Puram, Coimbatore South, Rs Puram East, S.O., Coimbatore 641 002. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Coimbatore. [Pan:Aajts1201L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate For Shri K. Ravi, Advocate Shri K. Rohan Raj, Addl. Cit 03.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2025 आदेश/Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.06.2024 Passed By The Addi/Jcit(A)-2, Surat For The

Section 143(1)

passed on 21.02.2018 and the appeal before the Id. CIT(A) was filed on 04.06.2024. We find that the assessee is required to file first appeal within 30 days from the date of receipt of order under Section 143(1) of the Act. Since the proceedings before ... online and service of the said intimation dated 21.02.2018 send through online on the same day itself. Therefore, the period of limitation to file first appeal before the Id. CIT(A) starts from the said date onwards i.e., 21.02.2018. Therefore, the assessee requires filing the first appeal on or before

Shri Parindra Reang, Amarpur vs. ITO, Ward- Udaipur, Agartala

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

ITA 177/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the Ld CIT (A) who disposed off the case on 23-02-2024 as per the Portal as response was filled against the Notice issued by his honour and disposed off the Appeal, partially allowing the Appeal filed.

Section 10(26)Section 147Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

notices issued through ITBA, leading to another exparte order at that stage. Needless to say, the assessee did not get any relief at first appeal stage either. 3. Further aggrieved with the action of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal through grounds of appeal which are lengthy

ACIT-1(1), Indore vs. Ashok Kumar Jain, Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 390/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

Shri Ranjan Agrawal, AR Date of Hearing 10.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.02.2025 amet /ORDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 28.08.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 26.12.2019 passed ... made by assessee from bank on 08.11.2016 and made addition of Rs. 1,01,11,000/- u/s 69A. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first- appeal. 3. During first-appeal, the assessee filed submission which is re- produced by CIT(A) in Para 4 of impugned order. The assessee also

Desh Raj Jakhar, Gordhanpura vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Neem Ka Thana

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

ITA 1261/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Shaffi Mohd. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT -DR

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 5Section 69

Income Tax Act. The addition of Rs. 59,09,500/- was made by the AO and created the demand accordingly. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition so made by the AO. The Bench noticed that the ld. AR of the assessee has filed a copy

Al Rasheed Charitable Society, Haryana vs. JCIT, Exemptions, Chandigarh

The appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by way of remand for fresh decision in

ITA 843/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

For Respondent: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

appeal. The assessee is aggrieved by order bearing number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1054714788(1) dated 28/07/2023 of CIT(A) under section 250 of the Act passed in First Appeal u/s 246A of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant A.Y is 2016-17 and the corresponding previous ... ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(c)/2019-20/1016582264(1) and is dated 28/06/2019. 2.3 The Assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid penalty order of Ld. AO preferred first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who by impugned order has sustained the order imposing penalty and has dismissed the appeal. 2.4 The assessee being aggrieved

Jatin Sachdeva H.No. 3842, Sector 32-A, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana, Punjab vs. Income Tax Officer Ward1(4) Ludhiana Jao ITO Ward 1(3), Ludhiana, Punjab

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 839/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 253

assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065601777(1) DT. 12/06/2024 passed by CIT(A) under section 250 of the Act in first appeal u/s 246A of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant AY is 2017-18 and the corresponding previous year ... 29/12/2019 of Ld. AO which is u/s 144 of the Act. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the assessment order dated 29/12/2019 preferred first appeal under section 246A before CIT(A) and who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 2.3 That the assessee being

Amit, Prop Ms Shree Ram Textile, Ambala City vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ambala

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

ITA 616/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assesssee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing Number :Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1062946490(1) Dated 19/03/2024 Of Cit(A) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-18 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2016 To 31/03/2017. Factual Matrix 2. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business “Retail Business Of 2.1 Cloth” In & Around Village In District Ambala, Haryana.

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri VivekVardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 254Section 44ASection 69A

assessment order is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. 2.9 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned assessment order” preferred first appeal under section 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the impugned order has dismissed the same. 2.10 That the assessee being

Ajaykumar Jashvantlal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1), Now Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 640/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 131Section 147

Ajaykumar Jashwantlal Shah vs. ITO resulted in passing exparte assessment order and determining the assessed income as Rs.24,58,130/-. 8. On first appeal before Ld. CIT(A), no evidence was filed by the assessee, therefore the same was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel appearing

Ajaykumar Jashvantlal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1) Now Ward - 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 639/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 131Section 147

Sandeep Prasad, Panagarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Durgapur

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

ITA 1399/KOL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: the CIT(A), but the appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) and the learned counsel of Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29/11/2023.

Section 144Section 148Section 250

confirmed the addition made by the Ld. AO mainly on the ground that the 5 months delay in filing of first appeal was not condoned. 3. Further aggrieved, the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds of appeal: 3 Sandeep Prasad “1. The assessee had received a notice

Supreme Traders, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 19(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 153/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Parvathy Ganesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 147Section 69A

appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for denovo meritorious adjudication of the grounds raised in the first appeal. Needless to say, assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and to make any further submissions, if so desired. Assessee is also directed

Meeras Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 6142/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Sankarmeeras Land Developers Pvt Vs. Ito, Ward – 9(2)(3) Ltd Room No. 129, Aayakar 9, Abhishek, Dalia Ind. Bhavan, Mk Road, Estate, Andheri Link Road, Mumbai – 400020. Andheri (W), Mumbai. Pan/Gir No. Aaecm6623J (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250

handling the case. Due to this, 3 Meeras Land Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai the notices from the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the first appeal order were not within the knowledge of the appellant.” 4. And this fact has been supported by affidavit, whereas on the contrary, no counter

Ashwin Shamrao Bhalekar, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-16(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2927/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Ashwin Shamrao Bhalekar Acit-16(2) 201 Triveni Apartment Aayakar Bhavan Suchidham Complex Vs. M.K. Road Film City Road, Goregaon Mumbai-400 Mumbai-400063. 020. Pan : Aebpb5505Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ram Krishn KediaFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Mehta

Section 10(38)

assessment order. 2. Aggrieved by the addition made by the Ld. AO, an appeal was filed before Ld. CIT(A), who is the first appeal authority and the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the Ld. AO stating that certain manipulations were done in this share

Bhavya Construction Co., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 21(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the assessee's appeals ITA No

ITA 4390/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Section 250Section 80I

Income-Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment year [A.Y.] 2006-07, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee's first appeal against the assessment order dated 12.03.2013. 2. This is the third round of litigation between the parties. Briefly stating, the appellant assessee ... income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.28,69,487/- vide assessment order 30.10.2008. 3. Learned CIT(A), vide order dated 22.01.2010 passed in first appeal, confirmed the disallowance. Appellant assessee preferred an appeal before this Tribunal against the order dated 22.01.2010 passed by learned CIT(A) and produced notification

Hindvee Small Finance Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3) Jammu, Jammu

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

ITA 215/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. K. L. Moolchandani, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69

person, as supporting documentary evidence of receipt(collection) of funds, and copies of written submissions filed before lower authorities in course of assessment and first appeal. 13. The Ld AR of the assessee submitted that though the grounds of appeal contained in the memorandum of appeal is in essay form

Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Limited, Mhow vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Income Tax Department, Indore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 720/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year: 2014-15 Prakash Asphalting & Toll Acit Central Circle -1 Highways (India) Limited, Indore बनाम/ 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aabcp0398N Assessee By Shri Anup Garg & Vikas Guru, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2025

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271ASection 274Section 80

Date of Hearing 22.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement 24.02.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 30.08.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax-3, Bhopal [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of penalty-order dated 21.03.2022 passed ... penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB was initiated on this issue.” 3. Aggrieved by penalty-order, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal but did not get any success. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us assailing the orders of lower-authorities. 4. The assessee has raised following grounds

Nidhi Jain, Bhopal vs. ITO 3(1), Bhopal

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 559/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year:2015-16

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 253(5)

Sr.DR Date of Hearing 02.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement 24.02.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 26.08.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated ... Nidhi Jain ITA No. 559/Ind/2024 – AY 2015-16 29,46,000/- on account of unexplained increase in Capital. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal but could not make representation before CIT(A), therefore the CIT(A) dismissed first-appeal while upholding AO’s order. Now, the assessee

Omprakash Jaiswal, Indore vs. ACIT-1(1), Indore

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 443/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 68

Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement 24.02.2025 amet /ORDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 31.03.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated ... assessee, and (iii) addition of Rs. 11,80,510/- u/s 68 on account of unexplained capital introduction. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first appeal before CIT(A). 3. During first-appeal, the assessee made a detailed submission which is re-produced by CIT(A) in Para 4 of impugned

Gaurav Goel, Chandigarh vs. ITO, Ward 4(3), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 132/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 132/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gaurav Goel, Vs. The Ito, बनाम H. No. 1676, Sector 33-D, Ward 4(3), Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahgpg3162Q अपीलाथ"/ Assessee ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Jaspal Sharma, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 आदेश/Order Per Paresh M. Joshi, Jm :

For Appellant: Shri Jaspal Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

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

S143(3)/ 2019-20 /1022901856 (1) and is dated 23.12.2019. 2.14 That the Assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order dated 23.12.2019 prefers first appeal before CIT(A) in terms of section 246A of the Act who by the impugned 132-chd-2024 Gaurav Goel, Chandigarh 10 order ... have verified the VAT details and ought to have dealt with in a 132-chd-2024 Gaurav Goel, Chandigarh 16 reasonable way before rejecting first appeal. VAT details supports the case of the assessee. 4.6 (i) We gainfully refer to Smt. Charu Aggarwal vs. DCIT reported in (2022) 140 taxmann.com