← 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

Aum Infratex Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer 4.1.2, Aayakar Bhavan

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed with

ITA 5173/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas P., Ld. Sr. A.R
Section 143(3)Section 250

appeal as ex-parte. 3. At the outset, from the impugned order, it appears that there was delay of 1064 days in filing the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, the Assessee has not filed any reason for such delay in form No.35 and therefore the Ld. Commissioner declined

Rashmi Gupta, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1)(1), G B Nagar

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

ITA 3491/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahmn & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Rashmi Gupta, Vs. Ito, Circle 5(1)(1), N G Nagar (Up) Nh-01, Felix Hospital, Sector 137, Noida G B Nagar, Up-201305 Pan :Adrpt7601G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

relevant details. Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars. 4. The matter went in first appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals). Ld. CIT(Appeals), in the light of the observations and decision rendered in the assessment order, dismissed the appeal

Bird Execujet Airport Services Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1017/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 38

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

Bird Worldwide Flight Service Mumbai Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1010/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 38

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

Bird Worldwide Flight Service Mumbai Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1009/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 38

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

Nishat Husseianli Vazir, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Pune

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

ITA 604/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Pune10 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.604/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nishat Husseianli Vazir, Vs. Ito, Ward-7(1), Pune. 7 M.G. Road, 36, Wonderland Camp, Pune- 411001. Pan : Adapv3432C Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Kishor B. Phadke : Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.07.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs. 2,06,83,929/- Instead Of Return Income Of Rs. 5,08,729/-. 2. The Appellant Contends That Unfortunately, The Appellant Failed To Check The Itba Portal & Learn About The Opportunities Of Hearing /Making Submission Before It Authorities & Neither Got Any Email Communication From The Office Of Learned Cit(A). Further, The Appellant Contends That Appellant Is Certainly Keen To Pursue The Matter On Merits & Facts.

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69

parte orders in absence of the assessee. It was the submission of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the assessee was NRI when first appeal order was passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and he was not available in India. We find some force in the arguments of Ld. Counsel

Shanmugasundaram Vijayalakshmi, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-8(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2463/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2463/Chny/2024 (िनधा:रणवष: / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Mrs. Shanmugasundaram Vijayalakshmi Ito बनाम/ #12/34, Arunachalam Road, Saligramam, Non-Corporate Ward-8(1) Vs. Chennai-600 093. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abrpv-0658-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms.T.M. Suganthamala (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms.T.M. Suganthamala (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147

impugned order. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. Though the assessee has remained negligent in substantiating its case during first appeal, however, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, we deem it fit to grant another opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case before

Mohamedaseef Abdul Rahim, Puducherry vs. ITO, Ward-1, Puducherry

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2462/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2462/Chny/2024 (िनधा:रणवष: / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Mr. Mohamedaseef Abdul Rahim Ito बनाम/ Old No.18, New No.14 Ward-1 Mamul Labhai Street, Kottakuppam, Puducherry. Vs. Puducherry-605 104. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Afmpa-5270-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms.T.M. Suganthamala (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms.T.M. Suganthamala (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 68

deposits if afforded another opportunity. The same has been opposed by revenue. 3. Though the assessee has remained negligent in substantiating its case during first appeal, however, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, we deem it fit to grant another opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case

ACIT, Circle-6(1), New Delhi vs. Chl Limited, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 9298/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 8777 To 8780 /Del/2019 (A.Y 2013-14 To 2016-17) Chl Limited Acit The Hotel Surya New Circle-6(1) Friends Colony, Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan No: Aaacc2587M (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Chl Limited Circle-6(1) The Hotel Surya New New Delhi Vs. Friends Colony, New Delhi Pan No: Aaacc2587M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Satish Khosla, Adv, Sh. Manish Malik, Adv & Sh. Pankaj Jain, Ar Respondent By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

relying upon the formula as per Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules 1962. The Ld. CIT(A) in first appeal restricted the disallowance to the exempt income. 3.3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Assessee had mixed pool funds and the available funds, which were more than

Chl Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-6(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 8780/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 8777 To 8780 /Del/2019 (A.Y 2013-14 To 2016-17) Chl Limited Acit The Hotel Surya New Circle-6(1) Friends Colony, Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan No: Aaacc2587M (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Chl Limited Circle-6(1) The Hotel Surya New New Delhi Vs. Friends Colony, New Delhi Pan No: Aaacc2587M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Satish Khosla, Adv, Sh. Manish Malik, Adv & Sh. Pankaj Jain, Ar Respondent By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

relying upon the formula as per Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules 1962. The Ld. CIT(A) in first appeal restricted the disallowance to the exempt income. 3.3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Assessee had mixed pool funds and the available funds, which were more than

Chl Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-6(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 8779/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 8777 To 8780 /Del/2019 (A.Y 2013-14 To 2016-17) Chl Limited Acit The Hotel Surya New Circle-6(1) Friends Colony, Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan No: Aaacc2587M (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Chl Limited Circle-6(1) The Hotel Surya New New Delhi Vs. Friends Colony, New Delhi Pan No: Aaacc2587M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Satish Khosla, Adv, Sh. Manish Malik, Adv & Sh. Pankaj Jain, Ar Respondent By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

relying upon the formula as per Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules 1962. The Ld. CIT(A) in first appeal restricted the disallowance to the exempt income. 3.3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Assessee had mixed pool funds and the available funds, which were more than

Chl Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-6(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 8778/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 8777 To 8780 /Del/2019 (A.Y 2013-14 To 2016-17) Chl Limited Acit The Hotel Surya New Circle-6(1) Friends Colony, Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan No: Aaacc2587M (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Chl Limited Circle-6(1) The Hotel Surya New New Delhi Vs. Friends Colony, New Delhi Pan No: Aaacc2587M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Satish Khosla, Adv, Sh. Manish Malik, Adv & Sh. Pankaj Jain, Ar Respondent By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

relying upon the formula as per Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules 1962. The Ld. CIT(A) in first appeal restricted the disallowance to the exempt income. 3.3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Assessee had mixed pool funds and the available funds, which were more than

Chl Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-6(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 8777/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 8777 To 8780 /Del/2019 (A.Y 2013-14 To 2016-17) Chl Limited Acit The Hotel Surya New Circle-6(1) Friends Colony, Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan No: Aaacc2587M (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Chl Limited Circle-6(1) The Hotel Surya New New Delhi Vs. Friends Colony, New Delhi Pan No: Aaacc2587M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Satish Khosla, Adv, Sh. Manish Malik, Adv & Sh. Pankaj Jain, Ar Respondent By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

relying upon the formula as per Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules 1962. The Ld. CIT(A) in first appeal restricted the disallowance to the exempt income. 3.3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Assessee had mixed pool funds and the available funds, which were more than

Sanjay Malhotra L/H of Banvesh Dutt Malhotra, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-43(1), Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2453/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2453/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2010-11) Sanjay Malhotra, L/H Of Banvesh Dutt Malhotra, 76-B, Dda Flats Lig, Rajouri Garden Extn., New Delhi 110027 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aqdpm-7218-B बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-43(1), Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Civic Centre, Block-E-2, Room 1807, Minto Road, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri V Rajkumar, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 09/12/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 09/12/2024 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 28.03.2024, For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Both Sides Heard, Order Of The Authorities Below Examined. A Perusal Of The Impugned Order Reveals That The Cit(A) Had Issued Notices To The Assessee On Four Occasions But There Was No Response From Assessee’S Side. The Cit(A) Decided Appeal Of The Assessee In An Ex-Parte Proceedings On The Basis Of Statement Of Facts Furnished By The Assessee Along With Appeal. A Perusal Of Assessment Order Reveals That The Assessee Has Not Appeared Before The Assessing Officer (Ao) As Well.

For Appellant: Shri V Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 148

came to know about the assessment order dated 08.12.2018. Immediately thereafter, an appeal before the CIT(A) was filed on 08.07.2019. During pendency of first appeal, the assessee Banvesh Dutt Malhotra died on 07.01.2021. The CIT(A) in an ex-parte proceedings condoned the delay but dismissed appeal

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Subhash Tyagi Prop. M/S Krishana Construction, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 1342/Del/21 is allowed

ITA 1342/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year 2016-17

For Respondent: Sh.Sanjay Pandey, CIT DR &
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 250Section 253(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

amount admitted towards non-existent liabilities Rs. 52 Crs. named in the statement under s. 132(4) as cessation of liabilities. In the first appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO to levy penalty @30% under sub-clause (c) to s. 271AAB(1) towards undisclosed income

Shri Subhash Tyagi, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 1342/Del/21 is allowed

ITA 1044/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year 2016-17

For Respondent: Sh.Sanjay Pandey, CIT DR &
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 250Section 253(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

amount admitted towards non-existent liabilities Rs. 52 Crs. named in the statement under s. 132(4) as cessation of liabilities. In the first appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO to levy penalty @30% under sub-clause (c) to s. 271AAB(1) towards undisclosed income

Sandeep Namdeo Nimhan, Pune vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Pune

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

ITA 2014/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2014/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sandeep Namdeo Nimhan, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), Pune. 114, Jaibhawani Nagar, Sutarwadi, Pashan, Pune- 411021. Pan : Awbpn6316R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pratik Sandbhor Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Filed His Return Of Income On 31.12.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.83,190/-. On The Basis Of Information That Income Chargeable To Tax To The Extent Of Rs.1,76,75,000/- Being Sale Value Of Agricultural

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessment order and first appeal order were passed in the name of Suvarna Sandeep Nimhan whereas second appeal before the Tribunal has been filed by legal heir Sandeep Namdeo Nimhan

Shri Ramdas Vishnu Markute, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Pune

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

ITA 1759/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1759/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Ramdas Vishnu Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Pune. Markute, S.No.1242 Murkute Vasti D.P. Road, Baner, Pune- 411007. Pan : Aanpm8750C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B. C. Malakar Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Earning Income From Business & Other Sources & Filed His Return Of Income On 31.03.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.37,22,582/-.

For Appellant: Shri B. C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

cases were reopened u/s 147/148, i.e. for the assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 and the assessment orders as well as first appeal orders were passed ex-parte. It was further submitted that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal has already set-aside the ex-parte ... were reopened and orders were passed u/s 147/148 of the IT Act. Since the assessee remained absent in first appeal, Ld. 4 CIT(A)/NFAC has decided the appeal ex-parte and dismissed all the three appeals filed by the assessee by separate orders. We also find that

Mamta Sumesh Jaggi, Ahmednagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 1545/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1545/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Mamta Sumesh Jaggi, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Gaikwad Colony, Civil Hadko, Ahmednagar. Behind Zopdi Canteen Savedi Road, S.O. Sawedi, Ahmednagar- 414003. Pan : Ahqpj9065K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Paras Munot Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2024 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Erred In Law & Fact In Making Addition Of Rs.1,62,32,990/- As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The It Act Without Considering Factual Position.

For Appellant: Shri Paras MunotFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 147Section 148Section 69A

/NFAC is unjustified. It was submitted before the Bench that proper opportunity was not provided to the assessee before passing ex- parte first appeal order. Ld. Counsel of the assessee further submitted that only three notices were issued in a short span of 12 days time period. Accordingly

Satara Education Society, Satara vs. DCIT (E) Circle, Pune

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

ITA 1054/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1054/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Satara Education Society, Vs. Dcit (E) Circle, Pune. 148, Mangalwar Peth, Satara City, Tetali B.O., Tetali, Satara- 415002. Pan : Aabts9280K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari : Date Of Hearing 08.10.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A), Thiruvanantpuram For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Laws & On Facts In Confirming The Appellant'S Income Assessed By The Learned Ao Amounting To Rs.11,68,77,245/- Instead Of Returned Income Of "Nil" As Declared By Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Phadke
Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 44A

determined taxable income of 3 Rs.11,68,77,245/- against the income returned by the assessee at Rs. Nil. 4. In first appeal, Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), Thiruvanantpuram primarily allowed the appeal of the assessee by saying that in the light of circular dated 23.04.2019 issued by the CBDT ... justified and accordingly needs to be remanded back to his file to adjudicate the ground no.2 & 3 raised in the memo of first appeal i.e. Form No.35. 8. We find some force in the arguments of counsel of the assessee that Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), Thiruvanantpuram failed to take note