← 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

Shrinivas Vijaykumar Chidrewar, Pune vs. ITO Ward 3(3), Pune

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

ITA 1469/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1469/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shrinivas Vijaykumar Vs. Ito, Ward-3(3), Pune. Chidrewar, A-38, S.No.55, H.No.1, Sadbhav Co-Op. Housing Society, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Ahspc3607Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai : Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.05.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Carrying On The Business Of Real-Estate Consultant & 2 Allied Activities & Furnished His Return Of Income Declaring Taxable Income Of Rs.5,13,056/-. Subsequently, A Notice U/S 148 Of The It Act Was Issued On The Basis Of Information Received From Acit, Circle-4(4), Mumbai That The Assessee Had Made Huge Cash Deposits In His Bank Accounts Maintained With M/S. Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. However, No Return Of Income Was Filed In Response To Notice U/S 148 Within 30 Days From The Date Of Service Of Notice. Thereafter, A Notice U/S 142(1) Was Issued & Assessee Furnished His Reply Along With Copy Of Bank Account, Copy Of Original Itr & Copy Of Registered Sale Deed. Thereafter Further Notices Issued By The Assessing Officer Requesting For Further Clarification On Account Of Cash Of Rs.54,24,870/- In Bank Account, But The Assessee Did Not Reply. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 On A Total Income Of Rs.59,37,926/- As Against The Income Declared By The Assessee In Its Return Of Income At Rs.5,13,056/-. Above Assessed Income Includes Unexplained Cash Deposits Of Rs.54,24,870/-.

For Appellant: None
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

orders passed by subordinate authorities. 5. We have heard Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. We find that in the first appeal proceedings, total 3 opportunities were provided by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to the assessee. Admittedly, all the three opportunities were given during the span

Pudhari Publications Pvt.Ltd., Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1396/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1394 To 1396/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Pudhari Publications Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito (Tds), Kolhapur. 2318 C-Ward, Bhausingji Road, Pudhari Bhawan Karveer, Kolhapur- 416002. Pan : Aadcp2453Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None (Written Submission) Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: The Above Captioned Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-4, Kolkata Dated 02.05.2024 For The Assessment Years 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1394/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2015-16 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: None (Written Submission)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 133(6)Section 194CSection 200(3)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271H

Rs.94,802/- for the period 01.10.2014 to 31.03.2015 i.e. for financial year 2014-15 relevant to the assessment year 2015-16. 6. In first appeal, Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-4, Kolkata observed that the appeal is filed for the assessment year 2014-15 but the order u/s 201(1)/201 ... financial year 2014-15 relevant to the assessment year 2015-16. It was further submitted that while online filing Form No.35 i.e. first appeal memo, it was clear cut mentioned that the appeal is filed for financial year 2014-15 and the order impugned against which the first appeal

Pudhari Publications Pvt.Ltd., Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1395/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1394 To 1396/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Pudhari Publications Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito (Tds), Kolhapur. 2318 C-Ward, Bhausingji Road, Pudhari Bhawan Karveer, Kolhapur- 416002. Pan : Aadcp2453Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None (Written Submission) Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: The Above Captioned Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-4, Kolkata Dated 02.05.2024 For The Assessment Years 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1394/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2015-16 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: None (Written Submission)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 133(6)Section 194CSection 200(3)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271H

Rs.94,802/- for the period 01.10.2014 to 31.03.2015 i.e. for financial year 2014-15 relevant to the assessment year 2015-16. 6. In first appeal, Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-4, Kolkata observed that the appeal is filed for the assessment year 2014-15 but the order u/s 201(1)/201 ... financial year 2014-15 relevant to the assessment year 2015-16. It was further submitted that while online filing Form No.35 i.e. first appeal memo, it was clear cut mentioned that the appeal is filed for financial year 2014-15 and the order impugned against which the first appeal

Pudhari Publications Pvt.Ltd., Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1394/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1394 To 1396/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Pudhari Publications Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito (Tds), Kolhapur. 2318 C-Ward, Bhausingji Road, Pudhari Bhawan Karveer, Kolhapur- 416002. Pan : Aadcp2453Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None (Written Submission) Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: The Above Captioned Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-4, Kolkata Dated 02.05.2024 For The Assessment Years 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1394/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2015-16 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: None (Written Submission)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 133(6)Section 194CSection 200(3)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271H

Rs.94,802/- for the period 01.10.2014 to 31.03.2015 i.e. for financial year 2014-15 relevant to the assessment year 2015-16. 6. In first appeal, Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-4, Kolkata observed that the appeal is filed for the assessment year 2014-15 but the order u/s 201(1)/201 ... financial year 2014-15 relevant to the assessment year 2015-16. It was further submitted that while online filing Form No.35 i.e. first appeal memo, it was clear cut mentioned that the appeal is filed for financial year 2014-15 and the order impugned against which the first appeal

Shri Venkateshwara Panmasala Industries Pvt Ltd, Kolhapur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolhapur

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 733/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2019-20 Shri Venkateshwara Panmasala Industries Pvt Ltd, 335, Sangli Kolhapur Byepass Road, Dharangutti Via Jaysingpur – 416 203. Pan: Aaccs5553P. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Asstt Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Kolhapur . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Hari Krishan [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/11/2024 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which Impugns First Appellate Order Dt. 06/03/2024 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)/ Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Act Which Emerged In Relation To & Out Of Assessment Order Dt. 24/11/2023 Passed By Ld. Assessment Unit, Nfac [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] U/S 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act For Assessment Year 2019-20 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Hari Krishan [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 68

loan in his order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act. 2.3. Aggrieved assessee company unsuccessfully assailed the aforestated addition and assessment in first appeal before the first appellate authority wherein the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of Ld. AO for assessee’s failure to prove