← 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

Hanubhai Devabhai Rathod, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anand

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

ITA 669/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 668 & 669/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18) बनाम/ Hanubhai Devabhai Income Tax Officer Rathod Ward 1, Anand Vs. C/O. M S Chhajed & Co. Ca, “Kamal Shanti” Nr. Sardar Patel Statue, Ahmedabad - 380014 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abrpr2912C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mahesh Chhajed, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 09.03.2024 For The Assessment Years 2016- 17 & 2017-18 Respectively. As The Facts Of The Cases Are Identical, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 69Section 69A

investment in the immovable property was not explained. As a result, the AO has passed the order ex-parte and made the additions. In first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed 4 opportunities to the assessee on 21.04.2023, 14.09.2023, 24.11.2023 & 24.01.2024. The assessee did not make any compliance

Hanubhai Devabhai Rathod, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anand

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

ITA 668/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 668 & 669/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18) बनाम/ Hanubhai Devabhai Income Tax Officer Rathod Ward 1, Anand Vs. C/O. M S Chhajed & Co. Ca, “Kamal Shanti” Nr. Sardar Patel Statue, Ahmedabad - 380014 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abrpr2912C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mahesh Chhajed, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 09.03.2024 For The Assessment Years 2016- 17 & 2017-18 Respectively. As The Facts Of The Cases Are Identical, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 69Section 69A

investment in the immovable property was not explained. As a result, the AO has passed the order ex-parte and made the additions. In first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed 4 opportunities to the assessee on 21.04.2023, 14.09.2023, 24.11.2023 & 24.01.2024. The assessee did not make any compliance

Manas, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1357/KOL/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2024AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.1354 To 1357/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2022-23 Manas……….…….… ……….. ……..……………………....Appellant 14, Rbi Green Wood Nook, 369/2, Purbachal, Kalitala Road, Kolkata – 700078. [Pan: Aabam3353Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Exemption, Kolkata............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri G. Banerjee, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 03, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 04, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench: The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Jaipur [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Pertaining To Four Assessment Years I.E 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Arise From Common Set Of Facts & Related To Same Party, Therefore, These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience, Brevity & Clarity. Since The Grounds In All Appeals Are Identical, Except Change Of Figures, The First Appeal Being Ita No.1354/Kol/2024 For Assessment Year 2018-19 Is Taken As Lead Case.

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

this consolidated order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity. Since the grounds in all appeals are identical, except change of figures, the first appeal being ITA No.1354/Kol/2024 for assessment year 2018-19 is taken as lead case. I.T.A. Nos.1354 to 1357/Kol/2024 Assessment Years

Manas, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Exemption, Kolkata

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

ITA 1356/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.1354 To 1357/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2022-23 Manas……….…….… ……….. ……..……………………....Appellant 14, Rbi Green Wood Nook, 369/2, Purbachal, Kalitala Road, Kolkata – 700078. [Pan: Aabam3353Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Exemption, Kolkata............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri G. Banerjee, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 03, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 04, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench: The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Jaipur [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Pertaining To Four Assessment Years I.E 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Arise From Common Set Of Facts & Related To Same Party, Therefore, These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience, Brevity & Clarity. Since The Grounds In All Appeals Are Identical, Except Change Of Figures, The First Appeal Being Ita No.1354/Kol/2024 For Assessment Year 2018-19 Is Taken As Lead Case.

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

this consolidated order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity. Since the grounds in all appeals are identical, except change of figures, the first appeal being ITA No.1354/Kol/2024 for assessment year 2018-19 is taken as lead case. I.T.A. Nos.1354 to 1357/Kol/2024 Assessment Years

Manas, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1355/KOL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.1354 To 1357/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2022-23 Manas……….…….… ……….. ……..……………………....Appellant 14, Rbi Green Wood Nook, 369/2, Purbachal, Kalitala Road, Kolkata – 700078. [Pan: Aabam3353Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Exemption, Kolkata............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri G. Banerjee, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 03, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 04, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench: The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Jaipur [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Pertaining To Four Assessment Years I.E 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Arise From Common Set Of Facts & Related To Same Party, Therefore, These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience, Brevity & Clarity. Since The Grounds In All Appeals Are Identical, Except Change Of Figures, The First Appeal Being Ita No.1354/Kol/2024 For Assessment Year 2018-19 Is Taken As Lead Case.

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

this consolidated order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity. Since the grounds in all appeals are identical, except change of figures, the first appeal being ITA No.1354/Kol/2024 for assessment year 2018-19 is taken as lead case. I.T.A. Nos.1354 to 1357/Kol/2024 Assessment Years

Manas, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Exemption, Kolkata

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

ITA 1354/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.1354 To 1357/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2022-23 Manas……….…….… ……….. ……..……………………....Appellant 14, Rbi Green Wood Nook, 369/2, Purbachal, Kalitala Road, Kolkata – 700078. [Pan: Aabam3353Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Exemption, Kolkata............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri G. Banerjee, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 03, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 04, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench: The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Jaipur [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Pertaining To Four Assessment Years I.E 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Arise From Common Set Of Facts & Related To Same Party, Therefore, These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience, Brevity & Clarity. Since The Grounds In All Appeals Are Identical, Except Change Of Figures, The First Appeal Being Ita No.1354/Kol/2024 For Assessment Year 2018-19 Is Taken As Lead Case.

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

this consolidated order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity. Since the grounds in all appeals are identical, except change of figures, the first appeal being ITA No.1354/Kol/2024 for assessment year 2018-19 is taken as lead case. I.T.A. Nos.1354 to 1357/Kol/2024 Assessment Years

Amarjeet Singh, Kaithal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kaithal

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

ITA 410/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 361/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 बनाम Rajwinder Singh, The Ito, Vpo Dhulkot, Ward 1 (3), Ghugrana, Ludhiana Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cuzps4045L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr.Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. Dr & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 410/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 बनाम Amarjeet Singh, The Ito, Near Firolpur Road, Ward 1, Tiwan, Kailthal Siwan Kaithal "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Graps0935M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By :Shri Vivek Vardhan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2024 आदेश/Order The Captioned Appeals Have Preferred By The Different Assessees Against The Separate Orders Dated 12.01.2024 & 361 & 410 -Chd-2024 Rajwinder Singh, Ludhiana & Amarjeet Singh, Kaithal 2 30.01.2024 Respectively Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’].

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr.Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148

said amount as unexplained income of the Assessee in the ex-parte assessment order passed u/s 144 of the Act. 8. In the first appeal, the Assessee pleaded before the ld. CIT(A) that the income of the Assessee was below the taxable limit. It was further pleaded that

Rajwinder Singh, Vpo Dhulkot Ghugrana vs. Ward 1(3), Ludhiana

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

ITA 361/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 361/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 बनाम Rajwinder Singh, The Ito, Vpo Dhulkot, Ward 1 (3), Ghugrana, Ludhiana Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cuzps4045L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr.Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. Dr & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 410/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 बनाम Amarjeet Singh, The Ito, Near Firolpur Road, Ward 1, Tiwan, Kailthal Siwan Kaithal "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Graps0935M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By :Shri Vivek Vardhan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2024 आदेश/Order The Captioned Appeals Have Preferred By The Different Assessees Against The Separate Orders Dated 12.01.2024 & 361 & 410 -Chd-2024 Rajwinder Singh, Ludhiana & Amarjeet Singh, Kaithal 2 30.01.2024 Respectively Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’].

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr.Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148

said amount as unexplained income of the Assessee in the ex-parte assessment order passed u/s 144 of the Act. 8. In the first appeal, the Assessee pleaded before the ld. CIT(A) that the income of the Assessee was below the taxable limit. It was further pleaded that

DCIT Pondicherry Circle, Pondicherry vs. Ravikumar Distilleries Ltd., Pondicherry

Accordingly. The ground stand partly allowed

ITA 1395/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.974/Chny/2018 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Ravikumar Distilleries Limited Dcit बनाम/ #17, Kamaraj Salai, Pondicherry Circle, Vs. Pondicherry-605 011. Puducherry-605 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aabcr-4195-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1395/Chny/2018 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S. Ravikumar Distilleries Limited बनाम Pondicherry Circle, # C-9 & C-10, Industrial Estate, / Vs. Puducherry-605 001. Thattanchavady, Pondicherry-605 009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aabcr-4195-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri A.Sasikumar (Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) - ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar (CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194JSection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 69

Rs.1251.16 Lacs Rs.508.31 Lacs The aforesaid difference were treated as unexplained investments u/s 69 and added to the income of the assessee. 3.2 During first appeal, the assessee submitted balance confirmation certificate as on 31-03-2015 and stated that the balances were reconciled. Further ... dispute with Shri Anil Agarwal. However, Ld. AO estimated notional interest of 14.2% against these balances and disallowed interest of Rs.413.22 Lacs. 4.2 During first appeal, the assessee stated that advances were given out of interest free funds and not out of borrowed funds which was supported by ‘Statement

Kedar Associates, Pune vs. TDS Ward 2, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1533/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1530 To 1533/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kedar Associates, Vs. Ito, Tds Ward-2, Pune. 105A Narayan Peth Off Lakmi Road, Pune- 411030. Pan : Aabfk6598A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Vaze Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: The Above Captioned Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 13.04.2023 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. At The Outset, We Find That There Is Delay Of 400 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. Ld. Ar Furnished An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons Of Delay In Filing Of These Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Duly Supported By An Affidavit. Ld. Dr Raised No Serious Objection Against The Delay Condonation Request Made By The Assessee. Accordingly, The Delay Of 400 Days In Filing Of These Appeals Is Condoned & The Appeals Are Admitted For Adjudication. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1530/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2013-14 (Quarter 2) For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. Vaze
Section 200ASection 234E

/NFAC. 7. After considering the reply, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC refused to condone the delay of 2965 days in filing of first appeal and dismissed the appeal without admitting the same. Without prejudice to above, it was also observed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC that appeal is filed against order ... contention of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the assessee has not received any order/intimation u/s 200A and therefore he was unable to file first appeal within prescribed time limit and therefore Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC ought to have condoned the delay. Now it is the submission of the assessee

Kedar Associates, Pune vs. TDS Ward 2 Pune, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1532/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1530 To 1533/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kedar Associates, Vs. Ito, Tds Ward-2, Pune. 105A Narayan Peth Off Lakmi Road, Pune- 411030. Pan : Aabfk6598A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Vaze Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: The Above Captioned Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 13.04.2023 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. At The Outset, We Find That There Is Delay Of 400 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. Ld. Ar Furnished An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons Of Delay In Filing Of These Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Duly Supported By An Affidavit. Ld. Dr Raised No Serious Objection Against The Delay Condonation Request Made By The Assessee. Accordingly, The Delay Of 400 Days In Filing Of These Appeals Is Condoned & The Appeals Are Admitted For Adjudication. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1530/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2013-14 (Quarter 2) For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. Vaze
Section 200ASection 234E

/NFAC. 7. After considering the reply, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC refused to condone the delay of 2965 days in filing of first appeal and dismissed the appeal without admitting the same. Without prejudice to above, it was also observed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC that appeal is filed against order ... contention of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the assessee has not received any order/intimation u/s 200A and therefore he was unable to file first appeal within prescribed time limit and therefore Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC ought to have condoned the delay. Now it is the submission of the assessee

Kedar Associates, Pune vs. TDS Ward 2, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1531/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1530 To 1533/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kedar Associates, Vs. Ito, Tds Ward-2, Pune. 105A Narayan Peth Off Lakmi Road, Pune- 411030. Pan : Aabfk6598A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Vaze Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: The Above Captioned Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 13.04.2023 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. At The Outset, We Find That There Is Delay Of 400 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. Ld. Ar Furnished An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons Of Delay In Filing Of These Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Duly Supported By An Affidavit. Ld. Dr Raised No Serious Objection Against The Delay Condonation Request Made By The Assessee. Accordingly, The Delay Of 400 Days In Filing Of These Appeals Is Condoned & The Appeals Are Admitted For Adjudication. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1530/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2013-14 (Quarter 2) For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. Vaze
Section 200ASection 234E

/NFAC. 7. After considering the reply, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC refused to condone the delay of 2965 days in filing of first appeal and dismissed the appeal without admitting the same. Without prejudice to above, it was also observed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC that appeal is filed against order ... contention of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the assessee has not received any order/intimation u/s 200A and therefore he was unable to file first appeal within prescribed time limit and therefore Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC ought to have condoned the delay. Now it is the submission of the assessee

Kedar Associates, Pune vs. TDS Ward 2, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1530/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1530 To 1533/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kedar Associates, Vs. Ito, Tds Ward-2, Pune. 105A Narayan Peth Off Lakmi Road, Pune- 411030. Pan : Aabfk6598A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Vaze Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: The Above Captioned Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 13.04.2023 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. At The Outset, We Find That There Is Delay Of 400 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. Ld. Ar Furnished An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons Of Delay In Filing Of These Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Duly Supported By An Affidavit. Ld. Dr Raised No Serious Objection Against The Delay Condonation Request Made By The Assessee. Accordingly, The Delay Of 400 Days In Filing Of These Appeals Is Condoned & The Appeals Are Admitted For Adjudication. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1530/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2013-14 (Quarter 2) For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. Vaze
Section 200ASection 234E

/NFAC. 7. After considering the reply, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC refused to condone the delay of 2965 days in filing of first appeal and dismissed the appeal without admitting the same. Without prejudice to above, it was also observed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC that appeal is filed against order ... contention of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the assessee has not received any order/intimation u/s 200A and therefore he was unable to file first appeal within prescribed time limit and therefore Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC ought to have condoned the delay. Now it is the submission of the assessee