← 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

Chittibabu Ghanta, Panaji, Goa vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 280/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Ajaykumar V. [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 246ASection 250Section 253(1)

delay in instituting these appeals before Tribunal for being disposed of by this common & consolidated order. 3. In advancing these matters together, the first appeal ITA No. 278/PAN/2024 for AY 2013-14 is taken as lead case, resultantly our adjudication laid in succeeding paragraphs shall mutatis-mutandis apply to remaining ... attention to paper book dt. 21/01/2026 placed on record by the Revenue and submitted that, for the years under consideration the assessee filed first appeals in time immediately after the assessment orders were passed. The Ld. CIT(A) upon their institution invariable forwarded multiple hearing notices and consequential impugned orders

Chittibabu Ghanta, Goa vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 279/PAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Ajaykumar V. [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 246ASection 250Section 253(1)

delay in instituting these appeals before Tribunal for being disposed of by this common & consolidated order. 3. In advancing these matters together, the first appeal ITA No. 278/PAN/2024 for AY 2013-14 is taken as lead case, resultantly our adjudication laid in succeeding paragraphs shall mutatis-mutandis apply to remaining ... attention to paper book dt. 21/01/2026 placed on record by the Revenue and submitted that, for the years under consideration the assessee filed first appeals in time immediately after the assessment orders were passed. The Ld. CIT(A) upon their institution invariable forwarded multiple hearing notices and consequential impugned orders

Chittibabu Ghanta, Goa vs. ACIT Central Circle, Panaji, Goa

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 278/PAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Ajaykumar V. [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 246ASection 250Section 253(1)

delay in instituting these appeals before Tribunal for being disposed of by this common & consolidated order. 3. In advancing these matters together, the first appeal ITA No. 278/PAN/2024 for AY 2013-14 is taken as lead case, resultantly our adjudication laid in succeeding paragraphs shall mutatis-mutandis apply to remaining ... attention to paper book dt. 21/01/2026 placed on record by the Revenue and submitted that, for the years under consideration the assessee filed first appeals in time immediately after the assessment orders were passed. The Ld. CIT(A) upon their institution invariable forwarded multiple hearing notices and consequential impugned orders

Shri Leo Diniz, Borda, Fatorda vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Panaji

The appeal is DISMISSED

ITA 150/PAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2016-17 Leo Deniz Row House No. 6 J P Andrade Residency, Borda Fatorda, Goa-403602 Pan: Amgpd8687A . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Omkar Godbole [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr Ish Gupta [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 02/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Appeal Is Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] By The Assessee Challenging Order Dt.

For Appellant: Mr Omkar Godbole [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ish Gupta [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 253(1)

Revenue. However, the appellant relied to no notice and remained silent throughout the entire assessment proceeding until passing of assessment order on 27/12/2018. The first appeal thereagainst as noted was filed on 23/01/2019. The appellant’s Ld. AR had no answer to the query that, if the email- ids (appellant

Adim Jati Seva Sahakari S Anstha Belkund, Belkund, Betul vs. ITO, Betul

ITA 95/IND/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshisa No. 2/Ind/2026 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 95/Ind/2026) &

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)Section 69A

dismissed and the ITA No. 95/Ind/2026 is immediately listed and heard. ITA No. 95/Ind/2026: 3. This appeal by assessee is directed against order of first-appeal dated 28.10.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated ... treating the entire amount of impugned deposits as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE. Aggrieved, the assessee matter in first-appeal whereupon the CIT(A) dismissed assessee's appeal in limine without adjudicating merits of case due to non-prosecution. Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in next appeal before

Srimad Virat Pothuluri Veerabrahmendra Swamulavari Muttam, Kadapa vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Tirupati

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2287/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1164/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Respondent) (Appellant) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2287/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer, Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Chittoor, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Respondent) (Appellant) निर्धारिती द्वारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate (Through Hybrid Mode) राजस्व द्वारा /Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: | 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 21/08/2023 & 21/10/2025 Respectively For The A.Y.2016-17.

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate
Section 253(5)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad 'A' Bench, Hyderabad श्री विजय पाल राव, उपाध्यक्ष

Patchaiappan Anbu Kothandaraman, Pondicherry vs. ACIT, Pondicherry Circle, Pondicherry

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2547/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.C.I.T
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

income for the impugned Assessment Year, statement of income, profit & loss account and balance sheet. The ld.AR of the assessee reiterated their submission from first appeal and argued that the Assessing Officer has erred in making an addition u/s.69 to the tune of Rs.37,52,500/- (Rs.20,80,500/-+ Rs.16

M/S. Buhari Hotels & Motels Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2449/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2449/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Buhari Hotels & Motels Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, No.6, Gandhi Irwin Road, Corporate Circe 1(2), Egmore, Chennai. Chennai – 600 008. Pan: Aaecb 4681M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Sujaya, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2026

For Appellant: Ms. Sujaya, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 250

disposed of both the appeals on 30.06.2025. The FAA presumed one appeal to be :- 5 -: duplicate appeal. The FAA disposed of the first appeal and dismissed the second appeal as infructuous. The relevant finding of the FAA reads as follows:- “6. I have examined the assessment order, the submissions made ... parties. In this case the appellant has filed two appeals for the same AY against the same assessment order. The appellant preferred first appeal u/s 246A of the Act, and filed Form 35 on 15/04/2014. And again, another Form 35 was filed on 30/06/2016. This is the 2nd appeal. Main

Mohammed Mazhar Kitabullah Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(4)(2), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8695/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, SR. D.R
Section 147Section 250

income from profits and gains from business and profession and house property respectively. 3. The Assessee being aggrieved against the aforesaid additions, though filed first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however except seeking adjournment on two occasions, eventually made no compliance and therefore, in the constrained circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner

Chetan Mafatlal Chopra, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 7203/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153CSection 250

square feet of carpet area on the second floor of Platinum Mall. 4. The Assessee, though, challenged the said addition by filing a first appeal raising various grounds before the Ld. Commissioner; however, could not get any relief, as the Ld. Commissioner not only affirmed the said addition

Chetan Mafatlal Chopra, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 7202/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT D.R.)
Section 153CSection 250

square feet of carpet area on the second floor of Platinum Mall. 4. The Assessee, though, challenged the said addition by filing a first appeal raising various grounds before the Ld. Commissioner; however, could not get any relief, as the Ld. Commissioner not only affirmed the said addition

Ishwarlal Jawahara Ram Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 7198/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT D.R.)
Section 153CSection 250

purchase of Shop No. 242, situated on the second floor of Platinum Mall. 4. The Assessee, though, challenged the said addition by filing a first appeal raising various grounds before the Ld. Commissioner; however, could not get any relief, as the Ld. Commissioner not only affirmed the said addition

Ishwarlal Jawahara Ram Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 7197/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT D.R.)
Section 153CSection 250

purchase of Shop No. 242, situated on the second floor of Platinum Mall. 4. The Assessee, though, challenged the said addition by filing a first appeal raising various grounds before the Ld. Commissioner; however, could not get any relief, as the Ld. Commissioner not only affirmed the said addition

Ishwarlal Javahara Ram Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 7196/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT D.R.)
Section 153CSection 250

purchase of Shop No. 242, situated on the second floor of Platinum Mall. 4. The Assessee, though, challenged the said addition by filing a first appeal raising various grounds before the Ld. Commissioner; however, could not get any relief, as the Ld. Commissioner not only affirmed the said addition

Manish Kantilal Haria, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer International Tax Ward 2 (2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6187/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Chag (virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR
Section 250

wholly relying upon my C.A.'s work, advices and attendance. 4. My C.A. sadly expired at relatively younger age before notices for hearing for first appeal before CIT (A) were received. In view of this, hearing notices received for appeal filed for A.Y. 2020-21 remained unattended and ex-party

JCIT(OSD)-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Kukreja Builders Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed in the above terms

ITA 2102/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit – 14(1)(1), Mumbai M/S. Kukreja Builders Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, 4 & 5Th Floor, Sai Mumbai - 400020 Commercial Building, Bks Vs. Devshi Marg., Govandi (E), Mumbai, Maharashtra– 400088 Pan: Aacck5040M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Ajay Singh & Shri Akshay Pawar, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr. D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.01.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2013-14. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee During The A.Y. Under Consideration Had Declared Its Total Income As Rs. 2,20,00,580/- By Filing Its Return Of Income, Which Was Initially Processed Under Section 143 Of The Act. 2 M/S. Kukreja Builders Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh & Shri AkshayFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (SR. D.R.)
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143Section 250Section 68

Rs.86,99,072/- as well. 24. The Revenue being aggrieved, challenged the decision of the Ld. Commissioner in deleting the aforesaid additions by filing first appeal and raising following grounds: Grounds of Appeal 1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case

Sar Auto Products Limited, Rajkot vs. ACIT Circle 1(2), Rajkot

In the result impugned order in set aside and, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 668/RJT/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2009-2010

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Khakhar, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69A

slackness on the part of Department to fix an appeal for hearing that has already been disposed of. That ld. DR submitted that the first appeal was decided in physical mode, subsequently, Faceless System of hearing the appeal was introduced for deciding the appeals. That there was a mistake committed

Ashok Kumar Chauhan, Shimla vs. DCIT Circle Shimla, Shimla

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

ITA 412/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: the learned CIT(A). It is noted that two appeals were filed—one in physical form and another electronically. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the first appeal on the ground of non-prosecution and subsequently dismissed the electronically filed appeal treating the same as infructuous, without adjudicating the issues on merits.5. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 80C

learned CIT(A). It is noted that two appeals were filed—one in physical form and another electronically. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the first appeal on the ground of non-prosecution and subsequently dismissed the electronically filed appeal treating the same as infructuous, without adjudicating the issues on merits

Amarchand Lakhmichand Narang, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 12(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 8977/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing)

Section 254(1)

assessee submits that there was little delay in filing appeal before ld CIT(A). The Assessing Officer (AO) passed assessment order on 26.12.2018. First appeal before ld CIT(A) was filed only on 26.04.2029, thus, in filing such appeal there was delay of 92 days. The delay in filing such ... gone through the lower authorities carefully. We find that ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee by not condoning the delay in filing first appeal. Before us, the ld AR of the assessee vehemently urged that the assessee is really interested to pursue his case on merit. Considering

Crimson Interactive Private Limited, Mumbai vs. A/DCIT-4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7309/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. D.R.)
Section 14ASection 250

added to the total income of the Assessee. 4. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the said disallowance by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who by observing that the Assessee has not provided its audited finances like balance sheets, profit and loss account and details of the expenditure