← 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

ACIT-1(1), Indore vs. Flexituff Ventures International Limited, Dhar

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 195/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Us Assailing The Order Of First-

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14A

Date of Hearing 08.01.2025 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 30.01.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order ... framed assessment u/s 143(3) wherein the AO increased total income due to certain adjustments. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal and succeeded. Now, the revenue has come in next appeal before us assailing the order of first- appeal passed by CIT(A). 3. The revenue has raised

Shree Jeenshashan Seva Shiksha Sanskar Sankul Trust, Ujjain vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Ujjain

Appeal is allowed

ITA 288/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: The Date Of Hearing” 2. The Background Facts Leading To Present Appeal Are Such That The Ao

Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Date of Hearing 08.01.2025 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 29.05.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order ... r.w.s. 147 after making certain adjustments and thereby determining total income at Rs. 16,19,470/-. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal but did not get any success. Now, the assessee has come before us in next appeal assailing the orders of lower- authorities. 3. Before

Zora Singh, Fatehgarh Sahib vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - Sirhind, Sirhind

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and

ITA 669/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Addl.CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 253Section 68

held chargeable to tax under Section 115BBE of the Act. 2.8 That assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order dated 24.11.2019 preferred first appeal under Section 246A of the Act before CIT(A) who by impugned order has dismissed the appeal. 2.9 That assessee being aggrieved by the impugned ... despite opportunities after opportunity, the assessee has failed ITA 669/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 7 to present its case on merits and has not pursued first appeal effectively. However, we are of the considered opinion that impugned order should be set aside and one more final opportunity be given

Indraprastha Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., Sangli vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward -5, Sangli

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

ITA 184/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.184/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Indraprastha Nagari Sahakari Vs. Ito, Ward-5, Sangli. Patsanstha Ltd., Islampur, Walwa, Sangli- 415409. Pan : Aaaai0626B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sarang Gudhate Revenue By : Shri Uma Shankar Prasad Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: It Is A Recalled Matter. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.03.2022 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Modified Grounds Of Appeal :- “Ground No. 1: Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) / Nfac Is Erred In Disallowing Deduction U/S 80P Of Rs. 65,81,336/-.

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad
Section 143(2)Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Rs.3,57,44,782/- undisclosed income u/s 68 of the IT Act, being the entire credit entries as per the AO. 4. In first appeal, after considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal by relying on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court

Lila Tejpal Jain, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 5927/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 250Section 50CSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

value of Rs.57,88,862/- and the purchase price of Rs.47,00,000/-). 5. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner and except filing the following grounds of appeal challenging the order dated 06.05.2023 passed

Chandra Prakash Goplani, Bengaluru vs. ITO 2(1)(1), Agra

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

ITA 166/AGR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253(3)

read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act. Thus , it was an ex-parte reassessment order passed by the AO. 6. Assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(Appeals). CIT(Appeals) issued as many as four notices to the assessee, but there was no compliance on the part

Rourkela Wholesale Consumer Cooperative Stores Limited, Rourkela vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Rourkela

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 38/CTK/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2018-19 Rourkela Rourkela Wholesale W Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Income Tax Officer, Ward Consumer Consumer Cooperative Cooperative Rourkela Stores Tores Limited., Limited., Nanda Bhawan, Main Road, Bisra Bhawan, Main Road, Bisra Road,, Rourkela Road,, Rourkela Pan/Gir No. No.Aaaar 0626A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/01/20 2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/01/20 025

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Section 139(1)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 250

applying the profit rate at 1% on the declared turnover after invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. 5. In first appeal, the Id CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. Thus, the present appeal is before us. 6. During the course of hearing

Rourkela Wholesale Consumer Cooperative Stores Limited, Rourkela vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Rourkela

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 37/CTK/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Jan 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2019-20 Rourkela Rourkela Wholesale Wholesale Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Income Tax Officer, Ward Consumer Consumer Cooperative Cooperative Rourkela Sstores Sstores Limited., Limited., Nanda Bhawan, Main Road, Bisra Bhawan, Main Road, Bisra Road,, Rourkela Road,, Rourkela Pan/Gir No. No.Aaaar 0626A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 270A

assessee has filed income u/s.148 of the Act, the income returned be treated as the amount of under reported income. 5. In the first appeal, the ld CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty. Hence, the present appeal is before us. 6. During the course of hearing, ld AR submits

Desh Mitter Gaind, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Panchkula, Haryana

ITA 454/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of Cit(A) Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Monga, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 48Section 50C

Round off Rs.76,52,280/- Proceedings before CIT(A) 10. The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of ld. AO dated 07.12.2018 prefers first appeal in terms of Section 246A of the Act before ld. CIT(A) who in the impugned order has observed and held as under

Indian Magic Eye Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1579/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Arun PatankarFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270

assessee at Rs.73,21,919/-. The above assessed income includes various additions amounting in all to Rs.7,09,56,186/-. 3. In first appeal, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under :- “Considering the non-compliant behavior of the appellant assessee during assessment proceedings

Indian Magic Eye Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1578/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Arun PatankarFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270

assessee at Rs.73,21,919/-. The above assessed income includes various additions amounting in all to Rs.7,09,56,186/-. 3. In first appeal, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under :- “Considering the non-compliant behavior of the appellant assessee during assessment proceedings

M/S. Duflon Industries Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6158/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154

made in the assessment order which was computed u/s.115JB. Such an addition was made despite the addition was substantially reduced in the first appeal by applying the GP rate of 12.5%. 7. The ld. CIT (A) dismissed the assessee’s grounds after noting all these submissions held that once bogus ... make any addition to the book profit while making original assessments and further such an addition got substantively reduced from the first appeal and thereafter, he has proceeded to make the addition within the scope of Section 154 by book profit for the amount of entire alleged bogus purchases. Such

M/S. Duflon Industries Private Limited., Mumbai vs. ACIT-1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6157/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154

made in the assessment order which was computed u/s.115JB. Such an addition was made despite the addition was substantially reduced in the first appeal by applying the GP rate of 12.5%. 7. The ld. CIT (A) dismissed the assessee’s grounds after noting all these submissions held that once bogus ... make any addition to the book profit while making original assessments and further such an addition got substantively reduced from the first appeal and thereafter, he has proceeded to make the addition within the scope of Section 154 by book profit for the amount of entire alleged bogus purchases. Such

Chand Khan, Sada Shiv Nagar vs. ITO Ward 1(2), City Center

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

ITA 109/AGR/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Jan 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 147

stood added to the income of the assessee by the AO u/s. 69 of the Act being unexplained money. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(Appeals). Ld. CIT(Appeals) issued as many as five notices to the assessee, but the same remained un-complied with

Kamlesh Narang, Gwalior vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Gwalior

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

ITA 104/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

Rs.11,85,478/- to the income of the assessee being credited in cash in assessee’s bank account as unexplained money. 4 Assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(Appeals) and raised as many as 8 grounds of appeal, wherein the assessee challenged the addition made both on merits

ACIT, Circle - 1, Belagavi vs. Rohit Parasharam Patil, Belagavi

Accordingly. The grounds of appeal stands accordingly partly allowed

ITA 71/PAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 071/Pan/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr Omkar Godbole [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 251Section 253(2)Section 69

income as his unexplained investment and assessed the same to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved by the aforestated addition the assessee filed first appeal which came to be allowed by the Ld. NFAC on the basis of appeal memo. 2.2 The Revenue aggrieved by the deletion of addition ... respondent assessee u/s 69 of the Act and brought same to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act. 4 Though the matter travelled in first appeal before the Ld. NFAC, but the assessee was indifferent in not complying with notices and his failure in making written submission and furnishing any evidences

Kalpana Mishra, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward 5(4), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 491/CTK/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita No.491/Ctk/2024 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) वष" Kalpana Mishra, Vs Ito Ward-5(4), Bhubaneswar Plot No.B-87/A, Chandaka Industrial Estate, Patia, Bhubaneswar-751024 Pan No. :Alfpm 2864 E (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri B.R.Pattnaik, Ca राज"व राज"व क" राज"व राज"व क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2025 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.03.2024, Passed By The Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1062168195(1) For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds :- 1. Hon'Ble Cit(Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Ao Even Though The Learned Ao Has Exceeded His Jurisdiction In A Limited Scrutiny Case Selected Under Cass Only To Examine Whether The Investment & Income Relating To Securities Transactions Are Duly Disclosed Or Not & Added A Sum Of Rs.44,00,000.00 U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Without Obtaining Prior Administrative Approval Of The Concerned Pr. Cit/Cit As Prescribed In Circular F. No. 225/402/2018/Ita.Ii, Dated 28- 11-2018 & Instruction No.5/2016 [F.No.225/269/2015-

Section 68

such loss was not declared by the assesee in the return of income filed, the AO has taken no cognizance of the same. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A), NFAC has confirmed the action of the AO. Thus, the present appeal is filed by assessee before

Harinder Kaur, Patiala vs. Income Tax Officer 6(3), Mohali

In the result, impugned order is set aside as and by way of remand on de novo basis

ITA 982/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 982/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Harinder Kaur, Vs. The Ito-6(3), बनाम Mohali Mohindra Complex, H.No. 9, H O. Hardaspur, 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Buspk5188G अपीलाथ"/ Assessee ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Cajla, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Cajla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253

Harinder Kaur, Patiala 3 2.2 That the Assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order dated 3011.2018 preferred first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before ld. CIT(A) who by impugned order has dismissed the appeal of the Assessee on Ground that “after filing the appeal, the appellant

M/S. Amrut Distilleries Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 950/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Prateek P, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar E, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 133ASection 40A(3)

assessee, the issue involved are common for all the three years. Therefore, we are deciding the appeal together and we are taking first appeal in ITA No.948/Bang/2023 and decision taken in ITA No.948/Bang/2023 shall apply mutatis mutandis to appeals in ITA Nos.949, 950/Bang/2023. 4. Briefly stated, the facts

M/S. Amrut Distilleries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 949/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Prateek P, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar E, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 133ASection 40A(3)

assessee, the issue involved are common for all the three years. Therefore, we are deciding the appeal together and we are taking first appeal in ITA No.948/Bang/2023 and decision taken in ITA No.948/Bang/2023 shall apply mutatis mutandis to appeals in ITA Nos.949, 950/Bang/2023. 4. Briefly stated, the facts