“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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Vireet Investments Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 938/DEL/2024[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumaracit, Circle 17 (1) Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. 21D, Friends Colony West, New Delhi – 110 065. (Pan : Aaacv2033M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 Date Of Order : 06.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 28.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2004-05 On 31.10.2004 Declaring Income Of Rs.34,80,69,911/-. The Same Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The 2 Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) On 28.12.2004. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. In Response, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Attended From Time To Time & Submitted Relevant Information As Called For. 3. The Assessee Was Incorporated On 03.10.1983 With The Main Objects, As Per Memorandum Of Association, To Acquire & Hold Shares, Stocks, Debentures, Debenture Stocks, Bonds, Obligations & Securities Issued Or Guaranteed By Any Company Constituted Or Carried On Business In The Republic Of India. After Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee, The Assessing Officer Proceeded To Make The Following Additions In The Assessment Completed U/S 143 (3) Of The Act :-

For Appellant: Shri Manish Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 48Section 80G

computing capital gain. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that similar disallowance was made by the Revenue in assessment year 2007- 08. In first appeal the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the findings of Assessing Office. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal

Mr Dnyaneshwar Baburao Kathe, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Pune

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

ITA 432/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.432/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Dnyaneshwar Baburao Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Pune. Kathe, Janori Dhawa, 10Th Mail Road, Dindori, Nashik- 422206. Pan : Bbppk3199D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Krishna V. Gujarathi Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.01.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstance Of The Case & In Law The Honorable Cit(A) Has Erred & Is Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.31,58,740/- By Treating The Cash Deposits Made By The Assessee In The Saving Bank Account Of Dena Bank As Unexplained Income Without Appreciating The Fact That The Said Cash Deposited In The Bank Was Out Of Agriculture Sale Proceeds. The Appellant Prays That The Addition May Please Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Krishna V. GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 148Section 3Section 50CSection 54F

supporting evidences. At the same time we find that the assessment order was passed ex-parte i.e. in the absence of assessee and first appeal order was passed after considering the remand report sent by the Assessing Officer. Under these circumstances we find that the assessee could not support

Smt. Bimla Devi, Jind, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jind, Haryana

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by way of remand back to the file of ld

ITA 261/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of A Second Appeal As Provided For In The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Relevant Assessment Year Is The Assessment Year 2011-12 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01.04.2010 To 31.03.2011. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1060056660(1) Dated 24.01.2024 Passed In First The Appeal Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order” Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Ita 261/Chd/2024 A.Y. 2011-12 2 Factual Matrix

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Danish Abdullah, JCIT, Sr

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 253

Rs.4,81,14,500/-. 6. The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Ld. AO challenges the same by filing the first appeal before ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” reduces the addition to Rs.59,90,000/- basis the remand report

Mohinder Chauhan, Shimla vs. ITO, W-1, Shimla

ITA 810/CHANDI/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal Under The Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is Assessment Year 2010-11. The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01.04.2009 To 31.03.2010. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Order Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1057469665(1) Dated 28.10.2023

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl.CIT Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 253

bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057469665(1) dated 28.10.2023 ITA 810/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2010-11 2 which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order” passed in the first appeal under Section 250(6) of the Act. Factual Matrix 2. That that assessee failed to file the return of income (ITR) for the assessment ... aforesaid original assessment order under Section 144/47 is dated 05.12.2017. 16. That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order dated 05.12.2017 prefers first appeal before ld. CIT(A) under Section 246A of the Act in Form No. 35 wherein fee paid is Rs.1000/- on 26.12.2017 Column No.16

Kirit Parasmal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3774/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 50CSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

above, if we examine the facts then it would reveal that there is a delay of 204 days in filing of the first appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). In its submissions before the ld. CIT(A), Kirit Parasmal Jain., AY 17-18 assessee has explained

Kirit Parasmal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3772/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 50CSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)-I/C DCIT Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1835/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR

Section 10(15)(iv)Section 101A(7)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43BSection 44

ITA Nos. 1834 & 1835/MUM/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 and 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 8(3)(1

DCIT, Cir-8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1834/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR

Section 10(15)(iv)Section 101A(7)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43BSection 44

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

M/S Tata Aig General Insurance Co.Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 8(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1816/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Section 10(15)(iv)Section 101A(7)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43BSection 44

ITA Nos. 1834/MUM/2023 & ors. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 ORDER PER GIRISH AGRAWAL

M/S Tata Aig General Insurance Co.Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 8(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1815/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR

Section 10(15)(iv)Section 101A(7)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43BSection 44

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Sunny, Patiala vs. ITO, W-1, Patiala

In the result, the impugned order is set aside as and by way

ITA 807/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal. The Relevant Assessment Year Is Assessment Year 2017-18. The Corresponding Previous Year Is From 01.04.2016 To 31.03.2017. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1057220538 (1) Dated 19.10.2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saldi,CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 253Section 69A

income is computed as Rs.19,07,000/-. Return of income was not filed. 3. The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order prefers first appeal before ld. CIT(A) in terms of Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 who by impugned order passed ITA 807/CHD/2023

Nirmal Kumar (As Legal Heir/Representative of Late Mishrilal Sharnickraj), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1191/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Shirish C. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 68

passed ex parte order in the name of Nirmal Kumar as appellant/AR. Shri Nirmal Kumar, L/R of the assessee in the first appeal has raised a legal issue in ground No. 2 regarding the AO passing the order in the name of non-existent person

Children Welfare Trust, Faridabad vs. ITO (Exemptions), Faridabad

ITA 1369/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Uschildren Welfare Trust Vs. Ito (Exemptions) 3-E, Park, Nit, Faridabad Faridabad Haryana-121001 Haryana Pan No.Aabtc6957B (Appellant) (Respondent) Vs. Ito (Exemptions) Children Welfare Society 3-E, Park, Nit, Faridabad Circle-2, Haryana-121001 Chandigarh Pan No.Aaaac0131F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pavan Ved, Adv. Shri Mohit Gupta, Ca & Shri Mirza Baig, Ca Revenue By Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2024

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)

which we are not presently concerned. 6. Aggrieved by the additions made, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) in first appeal endorsed the action of the AO and denied any relief towards taxability of surplus of Rs.10,74,513/- having regard to absence of registration ... relied upon and case law cited. The denial of benefit available under s. 11 and further enhancement of income by the CIT(A) in first appeal is under challenge. 10.1. It is the case of the assessee that the AO has wrongly denied the benefit of exemption under

Children Welfare Society, Faridabad vs. DCIT(Exemption) Circle-2, Chandigarh

ITA 1368/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)

M/S Gymkhana Club, Panchkula vs. ITO, W-3, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1305/CHANDI/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.D.Jain, Vice Prersident & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./Ita No 1305/Chd/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Gymkhana Club, Vs The Ito, Sector 6, Ward-3, Panchkula. Panchkula. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaag0115B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By: Shri S.K.Mukhi, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2024 उदघोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/10/2024 Physical Hearing आदेश/Order Per Vikram Singh Yadav,A.M.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Mukhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 234B

consideration before the Hon'ble Court was whether the ld. CIT(A) was well within his jurisdiction to entertain the first appeal under Section 246 of the Act against chargeability of interest by the AO under Section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. It was submitted that ... Supreme Court is akin to the fact of the present case as in the present case as well the assessee in their first appeals had limited themselves to the grievance of non- leviable of interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act at all. The contention

Coregeo Tech (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1626/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

assesse filed rectification application u/s 154 and order was passed on 07.02.2022. The assesse filed first appeal on 14.06.2023 with delay. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has not decided the issue on merits of the case and only dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay since there Page

Alok Joshi, Uttrakhand vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3219/MUM/2024[AY 2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Ms. Kshipra Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 246ASection 271(1)(b)

delay of 3939 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the Id. CIT(A) which has not been condoned and the first appeal has been dismissed on account of this delay. 8. To address the issue in hand before us, we need to delve into the understanding ... above, if we examine the facts then it would reveal that there is a delay of 3939 days in filing of the first appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). In its submissions before the ld. CIT(A), assessee has explained the reasons which prevented him in filing

Halwasiya Properties Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-3(5), Lucknow

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

ITA 204/LKW/2022[F.Y. 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Oct 2024

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Halwasiya Properties Private Income Tax Officer-3(5), Lucknow Limited, Halwasiya Court, Vs. New, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57, Hazratganj, Lucknow- Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow- 226001 226001 Pan:Aaach9708D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Devashish Mehrotra, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Gayasuddin, Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing: 03.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act Passed On 23.09.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Is Without Proper Opportunity & Contrary To The Principles Of Audi Alteram Partem And, Therefore, The Same Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Set Aside. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In Law, The Cit(A), Nfac Is Not Justified In Treating The Loan Of Rs.50,00,000/- Taken By The Appellant As Fictitious Loan. 3. That The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,25,000/- For Alleged Accommodation Entry Of Loan @ 2.5% & Subjecting To Tax In The Hands Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Sh. Devashish Mehrotra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gayasuddin, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

regarding his version of the facts of the case, it is evident that proper fact finding has not been done during the assessment or first appeal . As the documents presented are necessary to consider the defence of the assessee, in order to protect the interest of justice, the additional evidence

Dinesh Ramanbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1506/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1506/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dinesh Ramanbhai Patel The Ito बनाम/ 23, Shyam Sharan Part-2 Ward-3(2)(1) V/S. Aarohi Club Road Ahmedabad Bopal-Ghuma Ahmedabad – 380 058 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Btbpp 3659 P अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) ….. Assessee By : Shri Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Shri Kushal Fofaria, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 272A(3)(aa)Section 69

facts of the case in dismissing the appeal without appreciating the sufficient cause explained by the appellant for delay in filing the first appeal. Dinesh Ramanbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 3 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case

Abdul Irfan Abdul Ajij Sheikh, Wardha vs. ITO, Ward-2, Wardha

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

ITA 78/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Ms. Shrishti PandeFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 69A

learned CIT(A), we find that before the learned CIT(A) also, there was a delay of 447 days in filing the first appeal and the learned CIT(A) has simply rejected the appeal filed by the assessee on technical grounds without condoning the delay. While considering the explanation