“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

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions Circle Aurangabad, Near Cantonment Area Aurangabad vs. Alhira Education and Welfare Society, Aurangabad, Near Kat-Kat Gate

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee in C

ITA 494/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. Bora

Section 10Section 11Section 11(7)Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

ground that the details of registration u/s 12A were not provided. 3. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-5, Chennai. After considering the reply of the assessee, the ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-5, Chennai accepted the alternate plea

Vasant Hirachand Rathod, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward1(4), Kolhapur

The appeal is PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES

ITA 1385/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt Astha Chandra & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2017-18 Vasant Hirachand Rathod 461, B-Ward, Bhawani Chambers, Bhawani Mandap, Juna Rajwada, Kolhapur-416002. Pan: Aeupr6755D. . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Shingate [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(1)Section 44ASection 69A

hand of assessee and brought to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act by an order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The first appeal against the aforestated assessment before the Ld. NFAC did yield no favourable results to the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the orders of lower tax authorities

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jaipur vs. Gordhandas Nandkishore Jewellers, Jaipur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed with no orders as to

ITA 556/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Nargas, Addl. CIT fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

cash deposited by the assessee in his bank account during the demonetization period was undisclosed income under the garb of cash sales. In first appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that a portion of the deposits was not of specified bank notes, that section 68 of the Act was not applicable ... sale bills. An addition in respect of this large deposit was made under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In first appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the actions of the Assessing Officer. On further appeal : Held, allowing the appeal, “that it was not in dispute that

Shree Krishna Gaushala, Ramgarh Shekhawati Sikar vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward-II Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes with no orders as to cost

ITA 399/JPR/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 399/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shree Krishna Gaushala Ramgarh Shekhawati Sikar cuke Vs. The ITO (Exemption) Ward -II Sikar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAATS 5144H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Saurv Harsh, Advocate jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 25/09/2024 mn?kks"k.kk

For Appellant: Shri Saurv Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)

only one effective ground in this case that requires further elucidation due to erroneous interpretations at the stage of both the assessment and first appeal. The issue at hand pertains to the taxing of an amount of Rs. 14,14,420/-. The decision on this matter was made

Shri Ganga Four Wheels Private Limited, Sikar vs. Income Tax Officer, Sikar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders to cost

ITA 169/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Saraswat, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 142ASection 69B

hereby added back to the total income of the assessee on account of unexplained investment for the assessment year under consideration.’’ 2.2 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assesss by observing as under:- ‘’5.5 The appellant and seller are filing self-declarations that ... assessee, but the AO has not cared to verify the bank statement and mentions the cheque as `paid’ in the assessment order. Submissions: First Appeal Proceedings 1.7 Ld. JCIT(A), while agreeing with the non-payment of cheque No. 434080 for Rs. 60 Lacs, has justified the addition by mentioning

Rajkumar Asnani, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Jaipur

ITA 690/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)(V.C.)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

failure to furnish or comply with the notice u/s 142(1) dt. 18.11.2021 ,and 14.02.2022. And imposed the penalty of Rs.20,000/-. In first appeal assessee has filed the WS, details and legal position of law. However the ld. CIT(A) did not feel satisfy with the reply and conformed

Sandeep Jain, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 178/JPR/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Mudra (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 90

order dated 29-11-2019 treated the revised return filed as invalid and disallowed some of the foreign tax credit claimed. 1.3. On first appeal, Id. CIT (Appeals) in his order dated 16-01-2023 has allowed the full credit of foreign tax claimed but still treated the revised return

Ace Cabs Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Delhi, C R Building

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanace Cabs Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1 (2), 562, Silver Oak Lane, Delhi. M.G. Road, Ghitorni, Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaica4494R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 12.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Submitted An Application Under Rule 29 Of The Itat Rules For Admitting The Additional Evidences & The Contents Thereof Are Reproduced Below:-

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

However, the assessee has furnished the following evidences to satisfy the test of the “identity” of the investor: Evidence filed during the assessment and first appeal proceedings: (i) PAN Details and current Address as per MCA records; (ii) ITR of the investor ... following supporting evidence are enclosed in the PB to satisfy the test of genuineness of the transaction: Evidence filed during the assessment and first appeal proceedings: (i) Company business profile at page no. 97-124 of the PB. (ii) Ledger of Click Cab Technology, LLP in the books

Suwalka and Suwalka Properties and Builders Pvt Ltd, Kota, Rajasthan vs. ACIT, Central Cirlce, Kota, Rajasthan

ITA 302/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 129Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

dispute relates to the assessment year 2017-18. The order under challenged was passed by ld. CIT(A) because the assessee preferred the first appeal before him challenging the 2 Suwalka and Suwalka Properties and Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT assessment order dated 22.12.2019 passed u/s.143(3)of the Income

M/S. Vijay Jewellers, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -19(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4204/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Hrithik Yadav / Shri DevangFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon SRDR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

discharge its onus in proving genuineness of the purchases and dealers. During assessment proceedings, the addition was made on estimation @ 12.5%. In the first appeal, the addition was restricted to 3% and on further appeal to the Tribunal by the Revenue, the addition was enhanced to 6%. The entire addition

M/S. Vijay Jewellers, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -19(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4203/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Hrithik Yadav / Shri DevangFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon SRDR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Kuldeep Makhija, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 10(3), Pune

The appeal is DISMISSED with aforestated cost

ITA 946/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Kuldeep Makhija C/O Ghanshyam Shivnani, P/4-903, Oxford Village Premiums, Kedari Nagar, Pune-411040 Pan: Alnpm7224Q. . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Smt Deepa Khare [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umesh Phade [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 253(1)

ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 18 Kuldeep Makhija Vs ITO ITA No. 0946/PUN/2024 AY: 2012-13 5. We note that, the impugned order dismissing first appeal against the assessment was passed by the Ld. NFAC on 29/12/2022 and was admittedly served on the assessee on the same day. The fact ... aforestated affidavit the Ld. AR sought to condone the delay on twin counts viz; (a) unawareness of the appellant about the outcome of the first appeal and (b) being displaced from India hence was unable to act instantly. Per contra, adverting to appellant’s affidavit Ld. DR Mr Phade contended

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

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL

ITA 1470/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-2015 Shrinivas Vijaykumar Chidrewar A-38, S.No-55, H.No-1, Sadbhav Co-Op. Hsg. Society, Kothrud, Pune-411029 Pan: Ahspc3607Q. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Pune. . . . . . . . Respondent

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr BS Rajpurohit [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 132Section 147Section 250Section 69A

ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 6 Shrinivas Vijaykumar Chidrewar Vs ITO ITA No. 1470/PUN/2024 AY: 2014-15 The assessee assailed the former addition in first appeal 4. unsuccessfully. Aggrieved assessee challenged the impugned action of Ld. NFAC on two argumentative grounds, hence in view of rule 8 of ITAT-Rules

Hotel Soniya, Aurangabad vs. ITO Ward 1 (5) Aurangabad, Aurangabad Maharashtra

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES

ITA 1431/PUN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S Hotel Soniya Gut No. 83, Zhalta Phata, Beed Rd., Ch. Sambhaji Nagar. Pan: Aakfh1989D. . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Ramesh Thete [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr BS Rajpurohit [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 131ASection 133ASection 133A(1)Section 133A(3)(ia)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69

unexplained expenditure incurred by the assessee on construction of its hotel building and framed the assessment accordingly u/s 144 of the Act. 3. The first appeal challenging the former addition was dismissed ex-parte in absence of evidential documents in support of claims/grounds raised in appeal before the Ld. NFAC ... Without touching merits of the case, we have heard rival 4. parties on the limited issue of ex-parte dismissal of first appeal and subject to rule 18 of ITAT-Rules, 1963 perused material placed on record. We observed that, during survey a notebook ‘3D-Art’ was found & impounded

Subhash Runwal, Bibwewadi, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(4) Pune, Pune

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

ITA 1279/PUN/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Subhash Runwal 204, Solitari-5, Nr. Kalyan Bhel, Bibwewadi Rd., Pune-411037. Pan: Adbpr7670R. . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr CD Upasani [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr BS Rajpurohit [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 69A

assessee reiterated its version of contentions as were laid before both the tax authorities below and prayed for deletion of balance addition sustained in first appeal. ITAT-Pune Page 5 of 16 Subhash Runwal Vs ITO ITA No. 1279/PUN/2024 AY: 2012-13 Per contra, without objecting admission of legal ground ... subscribed in explanation 3 to section 147 of the Act as there was no addition on first ground/item. This factum when caught sight in first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) elegantly retained a symbolic portion of such interest addition just to push the case in explanation 3 to section

Alpesh Premji Dedhia, Mumbai vs. I.T.O. Ward - 33(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 3999/MUM/2024[ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2024

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal upon rejection of assessee’s delay condonation application. 3. Aggrieved by the impugned order, assessee filed this appeal on the ground that learned CIT(A) has passed impugned order without considering ... condonation application on the income tax portal, indicating its mention at sr. no. 6 of the e-proceedings response acknowledgement. Further submitted that the first appeal was filed on 09.08.2021 against the assessment order dated 10.03.2021 which was received by assessee on 31.03.2021. It is further submitted that there

Haresh Arjandas Bhatia, Ulhasnagar vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent as noted

ITA 3632/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Who Dismissed Assessee’S Appeal Ex-Parte.

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69A

same was deposited in old currency during demonetization period. . Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 19.12.2019, assessee preferred first appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s appeal ex-parte. . Assessee has filed this second appeal on the ground that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the aforesaid

Mahanagar Vyapari Nagrik Patsanstha Maryadit, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 27(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3483/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80P

appeal before learned CIT(A) on 10.04.2024 by a delay of about 1601 days. Assessee prayed for the condonation of delay in filing first appeal on the ground that the assessee society was not conversant with the change of the new ITA portal and the society was of the view ... submitted before learned CIT(A) that the wide spread global pandemic covid-19 was also one of the reason for the delay in filing first appeal. Learned CIT(A) was however not impressed with the reasons disclosed for the delay in filing first appeal and dismissed assessee’s appeal upon

Jasvinder Kaur, Village Hiana Kalana vs. Income Tax Officer, Nabha

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

ITA 465/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ld. Ao. However No Bank Details Specifying Credit / Debit Were Produced & Shown. Assessee Only Contention Was That Source Of Money For Said Purchases Were Money Belonging To Her Husband Jarnail Singh & His Affidavits Were Placed On Record. The Ld. Ao Did Not Consider Her Explanation On Source Of Rs. 97,95,000/- As No Bank Account Statement Specifying Credit / Debit Were Placed On Record. Hence

For Appellant: Shri N.K. Shahi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 246ASection 69

towards costs in acquiring agriculture land. 3. That he assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Ld. AO prefers first appeal under section 246A of Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by impugned order has dismissed the appeal of the assessee consequently order of Ld. AO dt. 26/03/2022 stands

Gurmail Singh, Banur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(5), Chandigarh

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

ITA 252/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2018-19 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2017 To 31/03/2018. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059732234(1) Dt. 16/01/2024 Which Is Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 25 Of The Act, In First Appeal. Brief Factual Matrix 2. That By An Order Bearing No. Itba/Pnl/F/270A/2023-24 / 1056104833(1) Dt. 14/09/2023 A Penalty Of Rs. 26,05,900/- Under Section 270A Of The Act Was Imposed On Assessee By Ld. Ao. On Perusal Of The Order It Is Noticed That The Order Was An Exparte Order Despite Opportunities Afforded To The Assessee Which Were Not Availed Of.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 246ASection 25Section 253Section 270A

aggrieved by the order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059732234(1) dt. 16/01/2024 which is passed by the Ld. CIT(A) under section 25 of the Act, in first appeal. Brief Factual Matrix 2. That by an order bearing No. ITBA/PNL/F/270A/2023-24 / 1056104833(1) dt. 14/09/2023 a penalty of Rs. 26,05,900/- under section ... opportunities afforded to the assessee which were not availed of. 3. That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dt. 14/09/2023 preferred a first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in terms of Section 246A of the Act who by the impugned order has dismissed the appeal consequently order