← 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

Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Raipur vs. Bhagyaarna Gems and Jewellery Private Limited, Kolkata

ITA 12/RPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.12/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR &
Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 68

Rs.31,500 was made as commission paid by the assessee to the aforesaid companies to procure the entries. The assessee, succeeded in the first appeal on merits. The 14 ITO, Ward-4(1), Raipur Vs. Bhagyaarna Gems & Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. FAA observed that the assessee had placed on record share

Rashmi Savla, Vidisha vs. ITO, Vidisha

The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 876/IND/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2011-12 Rashmi Savla Ito 1 Sawla Niwas, Veer Vidisha बनाम/ Hakikar Rai Marg Vs. Kirimohalla Vidisha (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aieps8293D Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.01.2025

Section 144Section 250

email and the due date of filing appeal before tribunal expired on 29th November 2024. On coming to know of the fact that the first appeal was disposed of ex-parte, she contacted her counsel Mr Ashish Goyal CA , who prepared and filed this appeal before the tribunal , on 12th

Manish Mundra, Dewas vs. Income Tax Officer - 1, Dewas

ITA 536/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)

536/Ind/2024 – AY 2014-15 आदेश/ORDER Per Bench: The captioned three appeals by three different assessees challenge three separate orders of first appeal dated 29.01.2024, 21.08.2023 & 22.04.2024, all passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi ["CIT(A)”] which in turn arise out of respective assessment-orders dated

Aditya Mundra, Dewas vs. Income Tax Officer - 1, Dewas

Appeals are allowed with

ITA 535/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Us In Next Appeals.

Section 143(3)Section 263

आदेश/ O R D E R Per Bench: The captioned three appeals by three different assessees challenge three separate orders of first appeal dated 29.01.2024, 21.08.2023 & 22.04.2024, all passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arise out of respective assessment-orders dated ... revision- orders, the AO passed fresh assessment-orders dated 23.12.2019 u/s 263 r.w.s. 143(3) after making certain additions. The assessees then filed first- appeals to CIT(A) assailing the orders of fresh assessment but did not get any success. Now, the assessees have come before us in next appeals

Manoj Kumar Mundra, Dewas vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Dewas

Appeals are allowed with

ITA 534/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Us In Next Appeals.

Section 143(3)Section 263

आदेश/ O R D E R Per Bench: The captioned three appeals by three different assessees challenge three separate orders of first appeal dated 29.01.2024, 21.08.2023 & 22.04.2024, all passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arise out of respective assessment-orders dated ... revision- orders, the AO passed fresh assessment-orders dated 23.12.2019 u/s 263 r.w.s. 143(3) after making certain additions. The assessees then filed first- appeals to CIT(A) assailing the orders of fresh assessment but did not get any success. Now, the assessees have come before us in next appeals

Samarthan Centre for Development Support, Bhopal vs. DCIT(Exemption), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 404/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2018-19 Samarthan Centre For Dcit (Exemption) Development Support, Bhopal 36, Green Venue, बनाम/ Kolar Road Huzur, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaats3998P Assessee By Shri Pradeep Ambastha & Ashish Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.01.2025

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 270A

Date of Hearing 20.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement 31.01.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 06.03.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 31.03.2021 passed ... treating the same as income from business denied exemption u/s 11/12 to that extent and accordingly made addition. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first appeal but did not get success. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us. 3. Ld. AR for assessee raised following contentions citing

Sunita Garg, Indore vs. ITO 4 (1) Indore, Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 389/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)

Revenue by | Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 30.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement 31.01.2025 /ORDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 30.03.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated ... submitted that during assessment-proceedings, the assessee was not able to file documentary evidences which has resulted in these hefty additions. However, during first-appeal the assessee could collect part of the evidences and submit before CIT(A) but the CIT(A) merely re- produced the Grounds of Appeal

Makson Health Care Pvt Ltd Makson Industries Pvt Ltd Before Merger, Mandideep Raisen vs. The DCIT -10-2 (2), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 213/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2012-13 Makson Health Care Pvt. Dcit 10(2)(2) Ltd. Mumbai Plot No.6A, Akvn Industrial Area, बनाम/ Mandideep, Vs. Raisen (M.P.)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)

Date of Hearing 22.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement 31.01.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 15.01.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 17.03.2015 passed ... expenditure u/s 36(1)(ii) and thereby determining total income at Rs. 3,92,95,800/-. Aggrieved, the assessee contested the impugned disallowance in first-appeal before CIT(A) but did not get success. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us. 3. Ld. AR for assessee made

Shri Abhijit Uttamrao Deshmukh, Beed vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Aurangabad

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

ITA 1596/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1596/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Abhijit Uttamrao Vs. Acit, Circle-3, Deshmukh, Aurangabad. Vithal Niwas, Ganesh Par Road, Parli Vaijanath Beed, Beed- 431515. Pan : Agwpd1032B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prateek Jha Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Confirming The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are, That The Assessee Is An Individual & An Ex-Parte Assessment Order Was Passed In His Case Wherein Income Of Rs.10 Crores Was Determined By The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JhaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 271(1)(c)

still pending for disposal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Admittedly, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should not be imposed before disposal of first appeal in quantum case. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the impugned order passed

Veeramani, Tuticorin vs. ITO, Ward 2, Tuticorin

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2816/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2816/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Veeramani Ito बनाम/ 1/326, Housing Board, Ward-2 Vs. Millerpuram, Tuticorin-628 008. Tuticorin. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Ajopv-9442-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Girish Kumar (Advocate) - Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. D. Babitha (Jcit) -Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Girish Kumar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. D. Babitha (JCIT) -Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147

appeal which stands condoned. The assessee has failed to appear before any of the lower authorities. It could also be seen that the first appeal was filed with delay 130 days. Finding no reasonable cause, the appeal was not admitted by first appellate authority. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further

Smt. Dayawanti, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1639/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Smt. Sangeeta Sawhney, Vs Acit, 6, Link Road, Jangpura Central Circle-7, Extension, New Delhi-110024 New Delhi Pan-Abjps6408A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2012-13] Smt. Sangeeta Sawhney, Vs Dcit, 6, Link Road, Jangpura Central Circle-7, Extension, New Delhi-110024 New Delhi Pan-Abjps6408A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.12.2016 & 30.12.2016 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-25, Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.14/15-16/21/16-17 & Appeal No.278/15-16/28/16-17 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Penalty Order Dated 21.09.2015 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) R.W.S 274 Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13 Respectively.

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

addition was made. At page 3 of the assessment order contained the working of the interest on year to year basis. 5. In first appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the same by observing that during the course of appellate proceedings, opportunities were given to the assessee to explain the income ... were made on account of notional interest, cash found during the course of search and jewellery found during the course of search. 32. In first appeal, Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee and in the meantime, the AO proceeded to levy the penalty

Infospectrum India Private Limited, Nagpur vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Nagpur

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

ITA 407/NAG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

case was called for hearing, the learned Counsel, Shri Kishore P. Dewani, appearing for the assessee submitted that there was a delay in filing first appeal before the learned CIT(A) and the assessee could not file Affidavit showing cause of delay and hence the learned CIT(A) refrained from ... after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is also directed that the assessee should file Affidavit explaining delay in filing first appeal before the learned CIT(A) on the basis of which the learned CIT(A) condone the delay as may deem fit and dispose

Sumedh Sopanrao Manwar, Washim vs. ITO Ward 2 Akola, Akola

In the result, appeals for A

ITA 261/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawadiyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 144Section 147Section 69A

situation in other assessment years also. 3. Before the learned CIT(A), there was a delay of 177 days in filing the first appeal from the date of passing of order under section 147 r/w section 144 of the Act. The assessee explained the cause of delay which was rejected

Sumedh Sopanrao Manwar, Washim vs. ITO Ward 2 Akola, Akola

In the result, appeals for A

ITA 260/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawadiyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 144Section 147Section 69A

situation in other assessment years also. 3. Before the learned CIT(A), there was a delay of 177 days in filing the first appeal from the date of passing of order under section 147 r/w section 144 of the Act. The assessee explained the cause of delay which was rejected

Sumedh Sopanrao Manwar, Washim vs. ITO Ward 2 Akola, Akola

In the result, appeals for A

ITA 259/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawadiyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 144Section 147Section 69A

situation in other assessment years also. 3. Before the learned CIT(A), there was a delay of 177 days in filing the first appeal from the date of passing of order under section 147 r/w section 144 of the Act. The assessee explained the cause of delay which was rejected

Sumedh Sopanrao Manwar, Washim vs. ITO Ward 2 Akola, Akola

In the result, appeals for A

ITA 258/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawadiyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 144Section 147Section 69A

situation in other assessment years also. 3. Before the learned CIT(A), there was a delay of 177 days in filing the first appeal from the date of passing of order under section 147 r/w section 144 of the Act. The assessee explained the cause of delay which was rejected

Sumedh Sopanrao Manwar, Washim vs. ITO Ward 2 Akola, Akola

In the result, appeals for A

ITA 257/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawadiyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 144Section 147Section 69A

situation in other assessment years also. 3. Before the learned CIT(A), there was a delay of 177 days in filing the first appeal from the date of passing of order under section 147 r/w section 144 of the Act. The assessee explained the cause of delay which was rejected

Sureshchand Lakhmichand Jain, Basoda vs. Income Tax Officer, Vidisha

Appeal is allowed partly

ITA 545/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sureshchand Lakhmichand Ito, Vidisha Jain, 19, M/S. Suresh Chand Adesh बनाम Kumar, / Sironj Road, Gandhi Chowk Vs. Ganj Basoda (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Admpj6555G Assessee By Shri Manish Dafaria, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2025

Section 115Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 69A

Date of Hearing 01.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement 30.01.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 29.05.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order ... made addition of Rs. 12,45,000/- u/s 69A read with section 115BBE of the act. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first appeal but did not get any success. Now, the assessee has come before us in this appeal assailing the orders of lower authorities

Jagdish Kumar Basantani, Bhopal vs. ITO 4(2), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 412/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year:2015-16 Jagdish Kumar Basantani Ito 4(2) F-143 First Floor, Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Plaza,Hamidia Road Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Adspb6993N Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2025

Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 40

Date of Hearing 07.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement 30.01.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, JM: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 29.02.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Bengaluru [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment

Ajay Agarkar, Ujjain vs. CIT(A), Madhya Pradesh

The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 337/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2018-19 Ajay Aagarkar Nfac House No.4, Kalpataru Delhi Avenue, Dewas Road, Near बनाम/ Rukmani Motors Vs. Ujjain (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abhpa2638L Assessee By Ms. Ruchira Nerkar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement .01.2025

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

claim of Rs. 3,00,000/- under clause ( ii) of the said section.The disallowance of the claim of Rs.2,72,664/- was carried in first appeal , and the Ld first appellate authority sustained the disallowance by observing as follows : Relevant portion of the first appellate authority is reproduced