← 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

Bharat Namdev Patil, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 14(1), Pune

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

ITA 1726/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Shastri
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

Rs.16,37,900/-. The above assessed income includes unexplained cash credit of Rs.30,00,000/- u/s 68 of the IT Act. 4. In first appeal, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee by saying that despite service of notices, the appellant- assessee did not file any submission

Amalendu Kumar Modak, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, 50(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1367/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 Amalendu Kumar Modak, Income Tax Officer, 50(1), Karer Ganga, Laha Bagan, Garia, Income Tax Office, Civil Centre, Vs Garia Main Road, Kolkata-700084, Uttarapan Complex, West Bengal Manicktala, Kolkata-700 067, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aekpm9399G Present For: Appellant By : Shri Indranil Banerjee, Ar Respondent By : Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit (A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ay 2017-18 Dated 14.11.2024, Which Has Been Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 147 Read With Section 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 29.05.2023. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Indranil Banerjee, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(a)Section 151Section 151ASection 250

consultant for further action. The assessee itself is not aware why the tax consultant has not filed the appeals. Moreover, in the first appeal there is a delay of only 30 days, which is not a substantial one. The assessee would not gain anything by filing the appeal late. There

Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust, Bengaluru vs. DCIT-(Exemptions) Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 1266/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80G(5)(vi)

expenses incurred towards earning the receipts and related establishment expenses, and not on gross contributions received by the assessee. 4.3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal with Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the contention of the assessee by holding as under:- “3.In ground no.4 & 5 the assessee ... expenses allocated comes to Rs. 1,30,47,306/- which was brought to tax by the ld. Assessing Officer. 5.2 Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal and the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under:- 5.3 “2. In ground no. 2, the assessee contend

Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust, Bengaluru vs. DCIT-(Exemptions) Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 1265/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80G(5)(vi)

expenses incurred towards earning the receipts and related establishment expenses, and not on gross contributions received by the assessee. 4.3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal with Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the contention of the assessee by holding as under:- “3.In ground no.4 & 5 the assessee ... expenses allocated comes to Rs. 1,30,47,306/- which was brought to tax by the ld. Assessing Officer. 5.2 Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal and the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under:- 5.3 “2. In ground no. 2, the assessee contend

M/S Punjab Tourism Developmenet Corporation Limited, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Chandigarh

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 142/CHANDI/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ao)

For Appellant: Sh.Tejmohan Singh, Adv. and Sh. Vineet Khurana, C. AFor Respondent: Sh.Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. D. R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253

This is an appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2012-13 corresponding to previous year period from 01/04/2011 to 31/03/2012. The corresponding first Appeal No. is:- 10370/18-19/AY 2012-13. The appeal is filed under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [which is hereinafter referred ... which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. I. Firstly, we shall deal with ITA No. 139/Chd/2020 for the A.Y. 2012-13 [ In First Appeal No. 10370/18-19/A.Y. 2012-13 CIT(A) Order dt. 18/11/2019] Factual Matrix (Proceedings before AO) 2. The Punjab Tourism Development Corporation is a Public Sector

M/S Punjab Tourism Developmenet Corporation Limited, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Chandigarh

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 141/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ao)

For Appellant: Sh.Tejmohan Singh, Adv. and Sh. Vineet Khurana, C. AFor Respondent: Sh.Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. D. R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253

This is an appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2012-13 corresponding to previous year period from 01/04/2011 to 31/03/2012. The corresponding first Appeal No. is:- 10370/18-19/AY 2012-13. The appeal is filed under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [which is hereinafter referred ... which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. I. Firstly, we shall deal with ITA No. 139/Chd/2020 for the A.Y. 2012-13 [ In First Appeal No. 10370/18-19/A.Y. 2012-13 CIT(A) Order dt. 18/11/2019] Factual Matrix (Proceedings before AO) 2. The Punjab Tourism Development Corporation is a Public Sector

M/S Punjab Tourism Developmenet Corporation Limited, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Chandigarh

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/CHANDI/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ao)

For Appellant: Sh.Tejmohan Singh, Adv. and Sh. Vineet Khurana, C. AFor Respondent: Sh.Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. D. R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253

This is an appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2012-13 corresponding to previous year period from 01/04/2011 to 31/03/2012. The corresponding first Appeal No. is:- 10370/18-19/AY 2012-13. The appeal is filed under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [which is hereinafter referred ... which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. I. Firstly, we shall deal with ITA No. 139/Chd/2020 for the A.Y. 2012-13 [ In First Appeal No. 10370/18-19/A.Y. 2012-13 CIT(A) Order dt. 18/11/2019] Factual Matrix (Proceedings before AO) 2. The Punjab Tourism Development Corporation is a Public Sector

M/S Punjab Tourism Developmenet Corporation Limited, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Chandigarh

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/CHANDI/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ao)

For Appellant: Sh.Tejmohan Singh, Adv. and Sh. Vineet Khurana, C. AFor Respondent: Sh.Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. D. R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253

This is an appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2012-13 corresponding to previous year period from 01/04/2011 to 31/03/2012. The corresponding first Appeal No. is:- 10370/18-19/AY 2012-13. The appeal is filed under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [which is hereinafter referred ... which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. I. Firstly, we shall deal with ITA No. 139/Chd/2020 for the A.Y. 2012-13 [ In First Appeal No. 10370/18-19/A.Y. 2012-13 CIT(A) Order dt. 18/11/2019] Factual Matrix (Proceedings before AO) 2. The Punjab Tourism Development Corporation is a Public Sector

Zahir Shaikh Nazeer Patel, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Aurangabad

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

ITA 1664/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B. S. Rajpurohit
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69C

above income includes addition of Rs.5,97,320/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the IT Act. 3. Since the assessee remained absent in first appeal, Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), Panaji dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before

Nageshwara Charitable Trust, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Exemption, Nagpur

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

ITA 129/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)

procedure with Charity Commissioner was started. The Charity Commissioner accepted the appointed of new President on 27.02.2020. There was delay in filing first appeal against the order u/s 143(3) dated 19.12.2018 by 405 days. The reasons were submitted in Form 35 and also in our reply dated

Nageshwara Charitable Trust, Nagpur vs. ITO WD 3, Exemp, Nagpur

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

ITA 128/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)

procedure with Charity Commissioner was started. The Charity Commissioner accepted the appointed of new President on 27.02.2020. There was delay in filing first appeal against the order u/s 143(3) dated 19.12.2018 by 405 days. The reasons were submitted in Form 35 and also in our reply dated

R.V.Raajah, Chennai vs. CIT(Appeals)-18, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 115/CHNY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.115/Chny/2021 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri R.V.Raajah Acit बनाम/ #97/2A, Harini Avenue, Central Circle-3(2) Velachery Main Road, Chennai. Vs. Guindy, Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adnpr-4751-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Subramanian (Ca) - Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms.R. Anita (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-08-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri R. Subramanian (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anita (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

addition of Rs.449.94 Lacs as made by Ld. AO, the addition to the extent of Rs.160.87 Lacs was confirmed in first appeal. The Ld. AO had initiated penalty but no penalty order was passed. The Ld. CIT(A) also did not pass any penalty order. Since no penalty was levied ... same, the claim was partly accepted as under: - AY Investment made by Addition made Addition sustained the assessee by Ld. AO in first appeal 2010-11 86.24 Lacs Nil 86.24 Lacs 2011-12 214.41 Lacs 449.94 Lacs 160.87 Lacs 2012-13 123.94 Lacs 16.65 Lacs 99.95 Lacs 424.59 Lacs

Rushabh Apartment Co-Op Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 883/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrirushabh Apartment Co-Op. V/S. Ito. Ward 19(3)(1), Housing Society Limited बनाम Mumbai Dr. Parekh Street, Matru Mandir, Mumbai Prarthana Samaj, Mumbai Maharashtra-400007 Maharashtra-400004 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaar5230L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

also peruse the relevant material based on record. First of all the assessee has explained the reason for delay in filing of the first appeal before CIT(A) that earlier CA of the assessee had filed rectification application u/ 154 before the AO/CPC, then assessee was under bonafide belief that ... under a bonafide belief that it has filed a rectification which was not disposed of till date, therefore delay in filing of first appeal cannot be held to latches on part of the assessee. Thus, delay in filing appeal before the first appellate authority is condoned. 8. On merits

Tridev-II Co. Op. Hsg. Soc., Mumbai vs. ITO-41(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 812/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Varun BramhechaFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad
Section 143(1)Section 143(4)Section 154Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

filing of appeal without passing a single comment regarding rectification application pending with the Assessing Officer. Technically there is no delay in filing the first appeal as no order has been passed till date against the rectification application either accepting or rejecting the same. 4. There is no malafide intention ... part of the appellant in delay in filing the first appeal, instead we were under the impression that the demand would be cancelled for AY 13-14 and AY 14-15 on the basis of the rectification order u/s 154 of AY 19-20 dated 22/10/2020. We have filed

DCIT (TDS) - 1(1), Mumbai, Cumballa Hills vs. Anand Rathi Commodities Limited, A Wing, Th Floor

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue as well as cross objections raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3919/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 2(28)Section 201

assessee in default' u/s. 201(1) of the Act for an amount of TDS of Rs. 7,83,45,558. 12. In the first appeal before the ld. CIT(A), first of all, referred to the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case pertaining to amalgamation

DCIT (TDS) - 1(1), Mumbai, Cumballa Hills vs. Ananad Rathi Commodities Limited, A Wing, Th Floor

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue as well as cross objections raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3900/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 2(28)Section 201

assessee in default' u/s. 201(1) of the Act for an amount of TDS of Rs. 7,83,45,558. 12. In the first appeal before the ld. CIT(A), first of all, referred to the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case pertaining to amalgamation

Vision Diagnostic India Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 26(2), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3067/DEL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

That impugned assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of 1961 Act (dated 30.12.2019) and further impugned first appeal order passed u/s 250 of 1961 Act (dated 16.03.2024) are both totally invalid and unlawful in so far as the impugned sole addition made u/s 68/115BBE amounting to Rs.13 ... arbitrarily and perversely sustained by Ld' CITA. 4.1 That impugned assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of 1961 Act (dated 30.12.2019) and further impugned first appeal order passed u/s 250 of 1961 Act (dated 16.03.2024) are both totally invalid and unlawful in so far as the impugned sole addition made

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. E R M India Pvt Ltd, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 237/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 199Section 46A

learned counsel highlighted the fact that in course of appellate proceedings of assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15, the CIT(A), in the first appeal, called for the remand report. The CIT(A), after examining the evidences, additional evidences and obtaining remand report from the Assessing Officer duly found

The Kamran Vikas Co.Op. Credit Society Ltd., Sabarkantha vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Himatnagar

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1659/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1657 To 1659/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18) िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Rushin Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

interest income from The Sabarkantha District Cooperative Bank Ltd. was disallowed by the AO, which was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) in the first appeal. 4. Shri Rushin Patel, the Ld. AR of the assessee explained that the interest earned by the assessee was from The Sabarkantha District

The Kamran Vikar Co.Op. Credit Society Ltd., Sabarkantha vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Himatnagar

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1658/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1657 To 1659/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18) िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Rushin Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

interest income from The Sabarkantha District Cooperative Bank Ltd. was disallowed by the AO, which was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) in the first appeal. 4. Shri Rushin Patel, the Ld. AR of the assessee explained that the interest earned by the assessee was from The Sabarkantha District