← 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

Ramad Ventures Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 20, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 408/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.408/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Ramad Ventures Private Ltd. Dcit बनाम Old No.23, New No.18, Corporate Circle-5(1) Chellammal Street, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 030. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecr-7531-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri K.G. Raghunath (Advocate) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Raghupathy (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K.G. Raghunath (Advocate) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Raghupathy (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 250

After rejecting assessee’s submissions, Ld. AO framed impugned assessment and disallowed business expenditure in toto. 3.3 During first appeal, the assessee assailed the validity of reassessment proceedings and also assailed the disallowance of business expenditure by relying upon various judicial decisions. On legal ground, it was submitted that

The Pondicherry Veterinary College Society, Puducherry vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Puducherry

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2608/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2608/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) The Pondicherry Veterinary College Society Dcit बनाम/ 1, Rajiv Gandhi Institute Of Veterinary Circle-1 Education, Vazhudavur Road, Puducherry. Vs. Kurumbapet, Puducherry-605 009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaabt-2494-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri V.Meenakshi Sundar (Ca)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R.Raghupathy (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri V.Meenakshi Sundar (CA)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R.Raghupathy (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 69Section 69A

opportunity before lower authorities which has been opposed by revenue. 3. It is evident that the assessee has failed to substantiate its stand during first appeal. However, keeping in mind the principles of natural justice, we accept the prayer of Ld. AR. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside

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 1372/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1372/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 Dr. Prayag Jha Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31.12.2024 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.05.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Not Condoning The Delay & Dismissing The Appeal Without Considering The Reasons Causing Delay & Without Appreciating That The Assessee Being Chairman Of The Maharashtra Shetkari Sugar Mills Was Facing Multiple Litigations Relating To Financial Problems Of The Said Organization Which Was The Main Cause Of Delay, Apart From Others, In Filing Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 144Section 147Section 148

above notices and therefore the assessment was completed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 on a total income of Rs.10 crores. 4. In first appeal, after considering the submission of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC refused to condone the delay of 180 3 days and accordingly dismissed the appeal ... appeal in time and accordingly we hold that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in not condoning the delay of 180 days in filing of first appeal. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, & in the interest of justice, without going into the merits of the case

A.D. Jeyaveerapandia Nadar & Bros., Chennai vs. ACIT, Non-Corp. Circle-1, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2607/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2607/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2012-13) A.D. Jeyaveerapandia Nadar & Bros. Acit बनाम 31, 3Rd Main Road, Kotturpuram, Non-Corporate Circle-1, / Vs. Chennai-600 085. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafj-3044-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vishnu Jayaram (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Raghupathy (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri R. Vishnu Jayaram (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Raghupathy (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A

Rs.19.06 Lacs ; (ii) Disallowance of expenditure for Rs.65.55 Lacs. It could be seen that the assessee failed to appear during first appeal and accordingly, the assessment was confirmed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR has pleaded for another opportunity of hearing which has been ... opposed by revenue. 2. It is evident that the assessee has failed to substantiate its stand during first appeal. However, keeping in mind the principles of natural justice, we accept the prayer of Ld. AR. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back

Adarsh Co-Operative Credit Society Limited Atpadi, Atpadi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5 Sangli, Pne, W, Pune

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

ITA 2139/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2139/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Adarsh Co-Operative Credit Vs. Ito, Ward-5, Sangli. Society Limited, Koshti Galli, Atpadi, Sangli- 415301. Pan : Aafaa0908H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri A. D. Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.08.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. When The Appeal Was Called For Hearing, Neither Anybody Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Any Application For Adjournment Was Filed Despite Due Service Of Notice Of Hearing.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A. D. Kulkarni
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the IT Act determining the income at Rs.18,62,601/-. 3 4. Since the first appeal was filed belatedly with a delay of 111 days, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay. It is this order ... suggested to file the appeal against the assessment order. It was also mentioned in the statement of facts that the delay in filing of first appeal was unintentional and not deliberate. Under these circumstances, the assessee society requested before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to condone the delay of 111 days