“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

Pooja Vijay Devnani, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are allowed for statistical purposes, in the above terms

ITA 7139/MUM/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Anirudh Dave - CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT D.R.)

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250

Vijay Devnani found between bank account and ROI, treating as income from business. 7. The assessee being aggrieved against the aforesaid addition though filed first appeal before the learned Commissioner however despite issuing four (4) notices made, no compliance and/or filed no submissions or documents and therefore the learned Commissioner

Pooja Vijay Devnani, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are

ITA 7138/MUM/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250

being difference found between bank account and ROI, treating as income from business. 7. The assessee being aggrieved against the aforesaid addition though filed first appeal before the learned Commissioner however despite issuing four (4) notices made, no compliance and/or filed no submissions or documents and therefore the learned Commissioner

Pushpa Vikas Jain, Mumbai Maharashtra vs. Central Circle 4(2) ACIT Mumbai, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Maharashtra

ITA 7098/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT DR)

Section 132Section 153CSection 250

Mall, over or above total consideration of Rs.19,19,925/- fixed in the Agreement for Sale/ Sale deed. 5. The Assessee, being aggrieved, preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner challenging the aforesaid addition and the assessment order dated 21.03.2024 passed under section 153C passed by the Assessing Officer

Pushpa Vikas Jain, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Central Circle 4(2) ACIT Mumbai, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Maharashtra

ITA 7097/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Section 132Section 153CSection 250

Pinkydevi Mahendrakumar Jain, Mumbai Maharashtra vs. Central Circle 4(2) ACIT Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Maharashtra

ITA 7096/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT DR)

Section 132Section 153CSection 250

Pinkydevi Mahendrakumar Jain, Mumbai Maharashtra vs. Central Circle 4(2) ACIT Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Maharashtra

ITA 7095/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT DR)

Section 132Section 153CSection 250

Inglorious Films LLP, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 6624/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2020-21 Inglorious Films Llp, Income Tax Officer, Unit No.301, 3Rd Floor, Crescent Wrqh C23, Maharshi Karve Royale, Veera Desai Road, Off Rd., New Marine Lines, Vs. New Link Road, Oshiwara, Aayakar Bhawan, Andheri – West, Mumbai – Churchgate, Mumbai – 400053. 400020. Pan –Aaffi0742Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Mr. Aamod Prabhudesai, Ca Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (Sr. D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.08.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By 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. 2020-21. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Challenged The Rectification Order Dated 07.03.2023 Under Section 154 Of The Act By Filing First Appeal Before The Ld. Commissioner Claiming Deduction On Donation Of Rs.5,00,000/- Under Section 80(G) Of The Act. The Ld. Commissioner Dismissed The Said Appeal By Considering The Peculiar Facts & Circumstances, Specific To The Effect That The Assessee 2 Inglorious Films Llp Cannot Claim Any Deduction (Herein Deduction Under Section 80(G) Of The Act) At The Appellate Stage, When The Same Has Not Been Claimed In The Original Return Of Income, Without Revising Itr Within Stipulated Time & Therefore, He Is Constrained Not To Allow This Claim Of Deduction At This Stage.

For Appellant: Mr. Aamod Prabhudesai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. D.R.)

Section 154Section 250Section 80

instant case, the Assessee challenged the rectification order dated 07.03.2023 under section 154 of the Act by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner claiming deduction on donation of Rs.5,00,000/- under Section 80(G) of the Act. The Ld. Commissioner dismissed the said appeal by considering the peculiar ... what defect was there in the rectification order dated 07.03.2023 under Section 154 of the Act, against which the Assessee has filed first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee has submitted that admittedly there was no defect in such order however, still the Assessee

Lynton Mario Dsouza, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi

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

ITA 4826/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2015-16 Lynton Mario Dsouza, National Faceless 118 Lynton Apt, Gamdevi Road Assessment Centre, Vs. Poisar Kandivali West, Mumbai, 245-A, North Block, New Mumbai-400067. Delhi-110001. Pan: Adrpd 6636 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tejas Sodha (Virtually Appear)For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, SR. D.R

Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 69A

bank account of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. 3. The assessee being aggrieved against the aforesaid disallowances/additions, challenged the same by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however despite issuing various notices and except seeking the adjournment on two occasions, eventually made no compliance and/or filed

Publicis Communication Private Limited As Successor to Capital Advertising Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 8(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2482/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2011-12 Publicis Communications The Deputy Private Limited, [As A Commissioner Of Income Successor To Erstwhile Tax, Circle-3(1), Capital Advertising Private [Now The Deputy Limited], Commissioner Of 15Th Floor, Urmi Estate, Tower Vs. Income-Tax, Circle A, 95, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, 8(2)(1), Mumbai Lower Parel (West), On Account Of Merger], Mumbai – 400013. Room No. 479, 4Th Floor, Pan-Aabca5234G Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Marg, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (Sr. D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 19.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.09.2015, 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. 2011-12. 2. In The Instant Case, The Ao Vide Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2014 Has Made The Additions Of Rs.18,00,000/- & 2 Publicis Communications Private Limited, [As A Successor To Erstwhile Capital Advertising Private Limited] Rs.5,00,000/- On Account Of Disallowance Qua Payment Made To M/S. Publicis Communications Pvt. Ltd. (Pcpl) & M/S. Korn/Ferry International Pvt. Ltd. For The Prior Period Expense Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. D.R.)

Section 250

PCPL) and M/s. Korn/Ferry International Pvt. Ltd. for the prior period expense respectively. 3. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the said additions by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite affording three opportunities, made no compliance and/or filed no submissions or documents and therefore in the constrained circumstances

Mohammad Irfan, Kashipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2)(1), Kashipur

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 239/DDN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun11 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shrisanjay Awasthimohammad Irfan V Ito Mahuakheraganj, Near Water, Tank, S Ward 2(2)(1), Kashipur (Udham Singh Nagar) Kashipur, Uttarakhand 244713, Uttarakhand Pan:Adopi8997D Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/02/2026

Section 144Section 144BSection 147

inordinate delay of 454 days in filing the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the first appeal of the Assessee in delay in latches, thus, sought for dismissal of the present Appeal. 5. We have heard the Department's Representative and perused ... never been served upon the Assessee as claimed by him, by applying liberal view,we condone the delay of 454 days in filing the first Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). As the assessment order also has been passed ex-parte, we remand the matter to the file

Hotel Rudra Continental, Udham Singh Nagar vs. Xit(A) NFAC, Haldwani

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 237/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.237/Ddn/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Hotel Rudra Continental, Commissioner Of Income C/O Matta Garg & Co.Chartered Accountants, Vs. Tax (Appeals),Circle 2(1)(1), 15, Astely Hall,Dehradun. Income Tax Office, Pan No.Aadfh6007K Haldwani, Uttarakhand. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 270A

imposed u/s 270A of the Act that the assessee was made aware of the assessment order and he took action promptly to file the first appeal. 1.2 The Ld. DR supported the action of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that the reasons given for the delay are vague

Income Tax Officer, Model Town Road vs. Nitin Dutta, Kalia Colony

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 455/ASR/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Udayan Dasgupta, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Farhat Khan (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

details also. Consequently, Ld. AO disallowed purchased of Rs.60.45 Crores and added the same to the income of the assessee u/s 69C. 3. During first appeal, the assessee stated that it furnished all the required documents to Ld. AO which includes PAN / GST details of suppliers, ledger extracts, assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Amritsar vs. Mesers Varun Traders, Amritsar

In the result, the revenue’s appeal ITA No

ITA 786/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Udayan Dasgupta, Jm

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144A

observations on the retraction, Ld. AO finally rejected the retraction and made addition of Rs.266 Lacs as undisclosed income of the assessee. 4. During first appeal, the assessee, inter-alia, contended that the addition was without any corroborative evidence and merely based on the surrender statement which was forcibly extracted

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Amritsar vs. Shri Pawan Kumar, Amritsar

In the result, the revenue’s appeal ITA No

ITA 785/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Udayan Dasgupta, Jm

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144A

Assiatent Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Amritsar vs. Shri Mukesh Shingari, Amritsar

In the result, the revenue’s appeal ITA No

ITA 781/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Udayan Dasgupta, Jm

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144A

Shri Pawan Kumar, Amritsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar

In the result, the revenue’s appeal ITA No

ITA 778/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Udayan Dasgupta, Jm

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144A

M/S Varun Traders, Amritsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar

In the result, the revenue’s appeal ITA No

ITA 777/ASR/2017[M/S VARUN TRADERS]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar11 Feb 2026

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Udayan Dasgupta, Jm

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144A

Shri Mukesh Shingari, Amritsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar

In the result, the revenue’s appeal ITA No

ITA 776/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Udayan Dasgupta, Jm

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144A

Smt Neha Prasanna Ghotage, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Karwar

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 268/PAN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

sake of brevity & convenience are heard together for being disposed off by this common & consolidated order. 3. In advancing these matters together, the first appeal ITA No. 259/PAN/2025 is taken as lead case, resultantly our adjudication laid in succeeding paragraphs shall mutatis-mutandis apply to remaining two appeals ... Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 4. As we find that, the first appeal against order of assessment dt. 21/03/2014 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 153C of the Act was filed before first appellate authority on 19/09/2023 u/s 246A r.w.s

Smt Neha Prasanna Ghotage, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Karwar

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 267/PAN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)