“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

Sukhdev Singh, Kurukshetra vs. ITO, Ward -1, Kurukshetra

ITA 402/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl.CIT Sr.DR

Section 144Section 144BSection 243ASection 250Section 253

share in 3 properties which came to Rs.1,20,30,325/-. 2. The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order dated 18.12.2019 preferred first appeal under Section 243A of the Act before CIT(A) who by impugned order has dismissed appeal. 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order

Allahabad Bank Now Indian Bank, Panchkula vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS Circle), Panchkula

In the result, the appellant's appeal is DISMISSED

ITA 292/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 292/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Allahabad Bank, Vs. The Dcit बनाम (Tds Circle), Now Indian Bank Panchkula Sco 12A, Sector 11, Panchkula "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Rtka02368C अपीलाथ"/ Assessee ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri U.S. Aggarwal, Advocate & Shri Manuj Bansal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Shakti Singh, Jcit Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri U.S. Aggarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Shakti Singh, JCIT Sr. DR

Section 201Section 246ASection 249(3)Section 250Section 253

written submission. It was contended by him that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay of 444 days in preferring first appeal u/s 246A of the Act as u/s 249(3) of the Act Assessee bank had established sufficient cause to seek condonation of delay. The original ... dated 15.3.2022 wherein an amount of Rs. 4,76,709/- was assessed and demanded. The Assessee bank was aggrieved of this order and preferred first appeal before ld. CIT(A) on 17.07.2023. The demand notice on the Assessee was served on 28.3.2022 and hence appeal ought to have been filed

Jagroop Singh, Barnala vs. ITO, W-1, Barnala

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is treated as dismissed

ITA 217/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/105946628(1) Dt. 08/01/2024 Passed By The Cit(A) Under Section 250(6) Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant A.Y. Is 2012-13 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2011 To 31/03/2012. 2. Factual Matrix

For Appellant: Shri Pardeep Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 246Section 250(6)Section 253Section 271

dated 16/12/2019 under section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act. 3. That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order dt. 16/12/2019 prefers first appeal undre the Act in terms of section 246 A on 31/05/2022 however the Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order has dismissed the appeal. Consequently

M/S. Flourish Purefoods Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT., Cent.Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 30/AHD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. No.518/Ahd/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Flourish Purefoods Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 11-12, Ecs House, Garden View, Tax, Nr. Global Hospital, Bodakdev, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad-380054 Ahmedabad [Pan No.Aadcv2683B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R

Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 68

30/Ahd/2022 Flourish Purefoods Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2016-17 - 2– 2. These are two appeals filed by the assessee, first appeal being against the quantum additions relating to addition on account of refund of advances under section 68 of the Act and disallowance of claim

Sadhana Nayyar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 17(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1310/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment year [A.Y.] 2013-14, wherein learned CIT(A) has 2 Sadhana Nayyar dismissed assessee’s first appeal, confirming the disallowance made by learned assessing officer against the assessee’s claim of depreciation. 2. The brief facts related to this appeal state that ... Chetan Nayyar. Secondly, that the car was not being used for the 3 Sadhana Nayyar purposes of assessee’s business. Aggrieved, assessee filed first appeal before the learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s appeal. 3. The appellant has filed this second appeal before this tribunal on the ground that

ACIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon vs. Krishan Kant Kohli, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6363/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Krishan Kant Kohli Dcit C/O. Rra Taxindia, D-28, Central Circle-Ii, South Extension, Part-1 Vs. Gurgaon, New Delhi Haryana Pan No:Aalpk4611N (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Krishan Kant Kohli Central Circle-Ii A-2, Geetanjali Gurgaon, Vs. Enclave, Haryana New Delhi Pan No:Aalpk4611N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 153ASection 153DSection 2(22)(e)

this regard. Hence, we reverse the Order of CIT(A) and delete the addition of Rs. 17,33,98,000/- which was sustained in first appeal out of the total addition of Rs.17,78,30,000/-made in the assessment order u/s 2(22)(e). It is clarified that revenue

Krishan Kant Kohli, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5720/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Section 153ASection 153DSection 2(22)(e)

Dhoot Compack Private Limited, Ahmednagar vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1549/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S. Bhandari

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148

above assessed income includes Rs.7,26,485/- [i.e. difference of Rs.16,68,485/- minus Rs.9,42,000/-]. 4 6. In first appeal, after considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), Thiruvanantpuram dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer ... following the above judgement of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (supra), we set-aside the first appeal order passed by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), Thiruvanantpuram and quash the reassessment order dated 26.12.2019 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s

Sh. Taiyab Khan, Jaipur vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar

ITA 342/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 115BSection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 288ASection 4Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

explanation furnished by assessee in respect of all such questions was accepted. Your honours would appreciate that neither during survey, nor during assessment/ first appeal stage, any specific query was made as to whether cash was lying anywhere else than the business premises. Moreover, there could not be any circumstantial ... explanation furnished by assessee in respect of all such questions was accepted. Thus, it is clear that neither during survey, nor during assessment/ first appeal stage, any specific query was made as to whether cash was lying anywhere else than the business premises. Thus, we note that when the cash

Gurpartap Singh Kairon, Chandigarh, India vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-2(1), Chandigarh, India

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 561/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard & Disposed Off.”

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Goyal & Ms. Ashisha Mittal, C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

liable to be quashed. 13. It was submitted that the assessee had already submitted the documentary evidence during the first appeal proceedings. The leave and license agreement between M/s Capital Estate and M/s India Infoline Ltd (IIFL) was provided to the Ld. CIT to substantiate the fact that

ITO, W-1(3), Chandigarh vs. Smt. Renu Anand, Chandigarh

ITA 1353/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Samir Mahajan, CA and Shri Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

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

which is hereinafter referred to as Act). The Revenue is aggrievedby the order dt. 29/08/2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in First Appeal No. 10316/16-17 which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant assessment year is 2013-14 and the corresponding previous year period ... Income tax return for the A.Y. 2013-14 and onwards. 15. That the Assessee being aggrieved by the assessment order dt. 29/03/2016 prefers first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the impugned order has allowed the appeal of the assessee. Some of his observations are reproduced below

Maharudra Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd, Sonjamb, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1777/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 250Section 5Section 68Section 80P(2)(a)

Respectfully following the precedent, I overturn the impugned order and direct to delete the addition of Rs. 1,78,500/- sustained in the first appeal.” 5 4.3 It is also observed that ITAT Pune in identical facts on following cases has allowed the appeal of the assessee : “4. I have ... ld.DR. Respectfully following the precedent, I overturn the impugned order and direct to delete the addition of Rs.1,78,500/- sustained in the first appeal.” 4.4 In these facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the ITAT Pune Orders, we direct the AO to delete the addition

Shri Santosh Harichand Katrela, Beed vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward -1, Beed

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 339/PUN/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.339/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Santosh Harichand Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Beed. Katrela, Audut Campus, Jalna Road, Gujrathi Colony Beed, Beed- 431122. Pan : Akgpk6862N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.03.2021 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Filed With Delay Of 99 Days. In The Light Of The Fact That Due To Covid-19 Pandemic The Period Of Limitation Has Already Been Extended By Hon’Ble Supreme

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69Section 69A

assessee at Rs.9,98,290/-. The above assessed income includes Rs.4,74,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act. 5. In first appeal, after considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the addition made

The Buldhana District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd, Buldhana vs. DCIT, Akola Circle, Akola

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 125/NAG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 143(1)

been allowed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Revenue has not filed appeal before the Tribunal. The claim was accepted in first appeal. 3 The Buldhana District Central Co–operative Bank Ltd. ITA no.125/Nag./2020 5. The return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 was filed ... determined. A similar situation was there in A.Y. 2007-08 and assessee had claimed deduction but it was not allowed in assessment and in first appeal the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 allowed the same in appeal no. CIT(A)-1/561/09-10 dt. 16/11/2011, vide para

Amuthasurabi Educational Trust, Namakkal vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2493/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman (FCA) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms.C. Vatchala (CIT) - Ld. DR

Section 143(1)

controvert the aforesaid fact. 3. Upon perusal, it could be seen that intimation u/s 143(1) has been issued on 29-12-2023. The first appeal Form No.35 has been filed by the assessee on 29-01-2024. It is quite clear that the appeal has been filed within time

Yogesh Ginning Mill, Prop. Yogesh Chand Gupta, Govindgarh vs. ACIT, Circle I, Alwar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 540/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri Paridhi Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT) a

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

statements and he had also provided the detailed explanation regarding the source of such during the statement and assessment proceedings and even in First appeal written submissions. That the cash was out of cash withdrawn from the bank of the appellant and he has given the cash to his cousin ... Sales & Purchase Register & Journal Register 13. Copy of Expense ledger 23. That being aggrieved by assessment order dated 27.12.2019, the appellant had filed the first appeal against the order of Assessing Officer, ACIT, Circle-1, Alwar on 07.01.2020. 24. That the appellant during the first appellate proceeding duly submitted

Yogesh Ginning Mill, Prop. Yogesh Chand Gupta, Govindgarh vs. ACIT, Alwar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1045/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Paridhi Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT) a

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

Jayesh Jashwnat Shah, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 32(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4735/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, Sr. D.R

Section 250

Shah 3. However, at the outset, it appears from the impugned order that no notice/opportunity has been given to the Assessee before deciding the first appeal filed by the Assessee and passing the impugned order. Therefore, for the just decision of the case and for the ends of substantial justice

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), New Delhi, Delhi vs. Absolute Projects (India) Ltd, Delhi

In the result, both the Appeal and the Cross Objection filed by the

ITA 89/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Deputy Commissioner Of Absolute Projects Income Tax, (India) Ltd. Circle-1(1), Room No. 153A, Vs. 4222/1, Laxmi Jung, C. R. Building, I. P. Estate, 1St Floor, Ansari Road, New Delhi Darya Ganj, Delhi Pan No:Aabca0783G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O No. 54/Del/2024 (A.Y 2017-18 In Ita No. 89/Del/2024) Absolute Projects (India) Deputy Commissioner Ltd. Of Income Tax, 4222/1, Laxmi Jung, 1St Vs. Circle-1(1), Room No. Floor, Ansari Road, Darya 153A, C. R. Building, I. Ganj, Delhi P. Estate, New Delhi Pan No:Aabca0783G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Manu Gawri, Ca & Sh. Rajiv Kr. Gawri, Ca Respondent By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2024

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 80

Representative vehemently submitted that the Assessee has failed to appear before the A.O. but filed certain documents before the Ld. CIT(A) during the first Appeal. However, the Ld. CIT(A) without calling for the remand from the A.O., without confronting those documents to the A.O. and without providing opportunity

Global Institute of Technology Society, Jaipur vs. DCIT-Circle-Exemption, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 296/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

this case, it is noted that the AO had disallowed the salary of Rs.21.00 lacs out of total claim of Rs.82.20 lacs. However, in first appeal, the additions in respect of all employees were deleted except that of Shri M.L. Kandoi. It is noted that Shri M.L. Kandoi was working ... allowed salary of Rs. 6,00,000/- and thus, disallowance was made of Rs. 4,80,000/-. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition and allowed the claim of salary of Rs. 10,80,000/- in entirety. Thus, no addition was sustained