← 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

Rajshri Vishnu Wagh, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1105/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1105/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rajshri Vishnu Wagh, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Nashik. Maruti Chowk, A/P Ambe Dindori, Janori, Tal. Dindori, Dist. Nashik- 422206. Pan : Adopw7595D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastava Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.10.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.05.2024 Passed By Ld Addl./Jcit(A)-2, Vadodara For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Basis Of The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, The Order Passed By Cit (A) May Please Be Set Aside As The Same Is Passed Ex Parte & Without Discussing The Merits Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 69Section 69A

determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,00,000/-. 4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Vadodara. The ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Vadodara issued notice of hearing on 29.02.2024, 07.03.2024, 11.03.2024 and 22.04.2024. Since

Ramuservai Ganesan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw 15(1), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1658/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1658/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Ramuservai Ganesan Ito बनाम/ #42, Florentina Apartments, Non-Corporate Ward-15(1) Gandhi Nagar, 3Rd Main Road, Adyar, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadpg-9534-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Deeptha (Jcit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-10-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-10-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Deeptha (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147

very higher side. The Ld. Sr. DR opposed the same on the ground that adequate relief has already been granted in the first appeal. 3. From the facts, it emerges that the assessee is running a vegetable shop in the name and style of M/s. Sri Ganesh Vegetable shop ... assessee has reflected turnover of Rs.437.40 Lacs. The Ld. AO has made profit estimation of 12% which has been reduced to 8% in first appeal. Considering the business background of the assessee, we reduce the estimation to 4% of turnover. The Ld. AO is directed to recompute the income

V Sathyamoorthy&Co, Erode vs. DCIT, Central Circle -2, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1023/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1023/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S. V. Sathyamoorthy & Co. Dcit बनाम/ 41, Patel Road, Central Circle-2 Vs. Near Blood Bank, Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfv-0222-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-10-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

would be on revenue to collect cogent evidences to corroborate the nothings therein. The ratio of other decisions as cited by the assessee during first appeal also supports the case of the assessee. 12. Upon cumulative consideration of aforesaid facts and reasoning, we would hold that impugned additions as made ... would be on revenue to collect cogent evidences to corroborate the nothings therein. The ratio of other decisions as cited by the assessee during first appeal also supports the case of the assessee. 8. Upon cumulative consideration of aforesaid facts and reasoning, we would hold that impugned additions as made

Santosh Maruti Pawar, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(5) Pune, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1311/PUN/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Oct 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1311/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Santosh Maruti Pawar, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(5), Pune. At Post Gopal Wadi, Daund, Pune- 413801. Pan : Bhrpp4140F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shir Paras Munot Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastava Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.01.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Present Appeal Is Filed Belatedly. The Ld. Ar With The Help Of Delay Condonation Application Supported With An Affidavit Submitted That The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Not Submitting The Appeal In Prescribed Time Limit. It Was Submitted That The Assessee Was Suffering From Hepatomegaly & Undergoing

For Appellant: Shir Paras MunotFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 3

r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act & determined taxable income of Rs.10,00,000/-. Against the above assessment order, the assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the assessee remained absent, ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution without discussing the merits