“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

Poonam Sabharwal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 28(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 88/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 36(1)Section 438Section 43B

were carried out the CPC-Bangluru and intimation was issued enhancing the assessed income in the captioned assessment years. The CIT(A) in the first appeal has sustained the adjustments towards belated deposits of employees’ contribution to PF/ESIC in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme

ACIT Circle-58(1), Delhi vs. Magical Enterprises L.L.P, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1059/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumar[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Acit Vs Magical Enterprises L.L.P Circle-58(1) 80, Kiran Vihar Delhi. New Delhi-110092. Pan-Abafm4809Q Appellant Respondent

Section 10Section 112Section 115QSection 143(3)

exemption claimed under s. 10(34A) of the Act obtained through alleged non-traceable companies cannot be allowed. 10. The Ld.CIT(A) in first appeal, on nuanced analysis of facts, observed that original allotment of shares at premium were carried in FYs 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 to some

Kangra Valley Garden Hotels Private Limited, Kangra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, Dharamshala

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

ITA 602/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)

Section 127(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253

under Section 143(3) of the Act. 3. That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order of ld. AO dated 29.03.2016 prefers first appeal in terms of Section 246A of the Act before ld. CIT(A) who by passing the impugned order however, has dismissed their appeal. Consequently ... personal hearing, hence the impugned order be set aside and matter may kindly be remitted back to CIT(A) for denovo adjudication of their first appeal. The ld. AR has produced before us a chart which is giving share issuance details by the assessee company, which is as under : Assessment

Kangra Valley Garden Hotels Private Limited, Kangra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, Dharamshala

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

ITA 601/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)

Section 127(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253

Kangra Valley Garden Hotels Private Limited, Kangra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, Dharamshala

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

ITA 600/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)

Section 127(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253

Ms Ekom Exim Private Limited, Sco-11, Sector-4D, Battan Lal Road, Gt Road, Mandi Gobindgarh, Fatehgarh Sahib vs. The Jurisdictional Officer ACIT, DCIT Centre Circle Patiala, Punjab

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

ITA 425/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Dt. 05/10/2023 Passed In 1St Appeal No. 10596/Rot/Patiala/It/Cit(A)-5 Ldh/2019-20 Pased Under Section 250(6) Of The Act By Ld. Cit(A) Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant A.Y. Is 2017-18 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2016 To 31/03/2017. 2. The Assessee Being Aggrieved By The Assessment Order Dt. 30/12/2019 Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 Of Ld. Ao Ward-2, Mandi, Govindgarh, Head Quarter, Sirhind Wherein Total Income Of The Assessee Was Computed As Rs.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 11Section 144Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 253Section 68

Ward-2, Mandi, Govindgarh, Head Quarter, Sirhind wherein total income of the assessee was computed as Rs. 20,26,79,670/- preferred first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) under section 246A of the Act who by the impugned order has dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. Consequently impugned assessment order

Jagjit Singh, Patiala vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Patiala

In the result we set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the file of Ld

ITA 105/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1058720011(1) Dt. 13/12/2023 Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2011-12 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2010 To 31/03/2011. 2. Factual Matrix

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 17Section 22Section 250Section 253

30/10/2018 which was passed under section 147/144 of the Act. 3. That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order dt. 30/10/2018 prefers first appeal before Ld. CIT(A)in terms of section 246A of the Act and by the impugned order Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the appeal ... order basis premises laid down by us as aforesaid. 6.2 We are of the considered view that delay of 125 days in preferring the first appeal ought to have been decided by the Ld. CIT(A) at the outset and threshold as limitation issue goes to the root

Hardev Kaur, Delhi vs. ITO Ward -2 Yanuna Nagar, Yamuna Nagar

Appeal of the assesse is disposed off

ITA 757/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1056936567(1) Dt. 10/10/2023 Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant Assessment Year Is A.Y. 2017-18 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2016 To 31/03/2017. 2. Factual Matrix 2.1 That A Return Of Income At Rs. 4,50,000/- Has Been Filed By The Assessee On 31/03/2018 & That The Same Was Processed Under Section 143(1) As Such. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass For The Reasons “Large Value Cash Deposit During Demonetization Period As Compared To Returned Income”.

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 20Section 246ASection 250Section 253

order bears No. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2019- 20/1023362041(1) dt. 29/12/2019. 4. That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order dt. 29/12/2019 prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before CIT(A) who by the impugned order has sustained the order u/s 143(3) dt. 29/12/2019 and further

Atam Parkash, Patiala vs. CIT(Appeals), Patiala

ITA 412/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dev Ahuja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 144Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 253Section 271

impugned order”. The relevant A.Y. is 2011-12 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01/04/2010 to 31/03/2011. The assessee had filed first appeal under section 246A of the Act as he was aggrieved by the Assessment Order dt. 11/02/2014 passed under section 144 of the Act. 2. Factual ... That the aforesaid assessment order dated 11/02/2014 was challenged by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) in first appeal under section 246A of the Act and the Ld. CIT by impugned order has dismissed the appeal of the assessee consequently Ld. AO order dated 11/02/2014 is sustained. 2.9 That

Tpl-Sucg Consortium, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 1110/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Malay Kalavadia, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 41

disallowance u/s 143(1) of the Act and contended that composite order is required to be passed. The ld.AR further submitted that the first appeal filed by the assessee before the LD.CIT(A) was dismissed on 24.05.2024 as infructuous and aggrieved by the said dismissal, assessee filed a rectification application

Tpl - Sucg Consortium, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 1109/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Malay Kalavadia, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 41

Hansa Mahesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO-22(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5265/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Bhuta, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas P., Sr. DR

Section 144Section 248Section 250Section 68Section 69C

unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the aforesaid additions before the Ld. Commissioner by filing first appeal. The appeal filed by the assessee has been dismissed by the Ld. Commissioner on the ground of delay but without mentioning the duration of delay ... assessment order was served on the assessee prior to 22.01.2020. Considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, as there was no delay in filing first appeal before Ld. Commissioner and even otherwise if there was delay if any construing that the assessment order has been received by the assessee

Bluekare Foundation, Delhi vs. CIT(Exemption), Delhi

In the result, both these appeals are dismissed

ITA 2285/DEL/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Gupta,CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

SINGH, VP: These two appeals by the Assessee are arising out of two different orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Delhi, i.e., the first appeal is against the rejection of the application filed in Form 10AB for registration U/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income

Bluekare Foundation, Delhi vs. CIT(Exemption), Delhi

In the result, both these appeals are dismissed

ITA 2284/DEL/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Gupta,CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

Narayan Das Talreja, N.S.M., Azadpur, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 36(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2564/DEL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2564/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2018-19) Narain Dass Talreja, (Through Kishore Talreja Lr) B-206, New Subzi Mandi, Azad Pur, Delhi-110033 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Acspt-4460-B बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri K.P Ganguly & Narender Kumar, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 18/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 19.07.2023, For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Facts Of The Case In Brief As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Is A Commission Agent & Is Engaged In Trading Of Fresh Fruits. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Impugned Assessment Year Declaring Income Of Rs.9,30,120/-. In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings The Assessing Officer (Ao) Found That In Violation Of Provisions Of U/S. 40A(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) The Assessee Has Made Payment In Cash In Excess Of Rs.10,000/- To A Single Person & There Are Several Such Payments. Hence, He Made Disallowance U/S. 40A(3) Of The Act On Following Transactions:

For Appellant: S/Shri K.P Ganguly, & Narender Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 40A(2)Section 40A(3)

impugned order as the same has been passed in the name of a dead person. Narayan Das died on 04.05.2022, i.e. during pendency of First Appeal before the CIT(A). A copy of death certificate is placed on record before the Tribunal at page 46 of the paper book ... emanating from records that assessee had ever informed to the CIT(A), regarding the fact of death of Narayan Das during pendency of first appeal. 4 Unless the LR’s of the assessee inform the CIT(A) regarding death of the assessee it would not be in the knowledge

Trident Sales Corporation, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward - 3(4), Gurgaon

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 70/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 5

perusal of the affidavit reveals that the delay in filing of present appeal is caused due to non-reporting of the result of first appeal by the then counsel of the 2 assessee Shri Sahil Goyal. In support of the reasons given in the affidavit for condonation Shri Parmil Kumar

St. Marys English Medium School Society, Narasaraopet vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemption Ward), Guntur

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

ITA 485/VIZ/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.484 & 485/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) St. Marys English Medium School Society V. Ito (Exemption) Income Tax Office Main Road, Ravipadu Village Lakshmipuram Main Road Narasaraopet Mandal Guntur – 522006 Narasaraopet – 522604, Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aakts3349C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 10Section 11Section 143(1)

case, Ld. CIT(A) on being not satisfied with the cause shown by the assessee declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal first appeal before him. On going through the application for condonation of delay, it is observed that the delay in filing the present appeal

St. Marys English Medium School Society, Narasaraopet vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemption Ward), Guntur

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

ITA 484/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Section 10Section 11Section 143(1)

Deepto Roy, Mumbai vs. Dic, Circle-16(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4628/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19 Deepto Roy Deputy Commissioner 1103, C Wing, Of Income Tax, Circle Tower I, 16(2) Ashok Gardens, Aayakar Bhawan, T J Road, Vs. Mumbai. Sewree Mumbai, Kalachowki S.O., Mumbai- 400033. Pan: Aikpr5472P Appellant : Respondent

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Shri. R. R. Makwana, SR. D.R

Section 148Section 69Section 69C

payable as per above computation with interest upto April 2023 (being the date of payment of tax paid during the first appeal) amounts to Rs. 18,61,725/-. Whereas the appellant has already remitted Rs.25,00,000/- on 8th April, 2023 as Self- Assessment Tax. Therefore, the entire tax liability

The Thanesar Co-Op Marketing Cum Processing Society Limited, Kurukshetra, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kurukshetra, Haryana

ITA 640/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-

For Appellant: Shri B.M.Monga, Advocate and Shri Rohit Kaura,AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 243ASection 250Section 253

order was passed under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The assessee challenged the aforesaid order under Section 243A by filing first appeal before ld. CIT(A) who by impugned order has dismissed the appeal on the ground that from 03.08.2023 to 21.03.2024 in aggregate six notices