“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

Al Rasheed Charitable Society, Jagadhari vs. DCIT Exemptions, Circle-2, Chandigarh

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

ITA 573/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: This Tribunal. The Relevant Ay Is 2016-17 & Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2015 To 31/03/2016. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1054712149(1) 28/07/2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Act, Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

such reports as Ld. CIT(A) deems fit and proper. Needless to state CIT(A) has all powers under the Act to dispose of first appeal as he /she deems fit and proper. The appeal to be disposed off as expeditiously as possible. 8. Impugned order is set aside

New Kable Point, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Thrissur

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

ITA 268/COCH/2024[AY 2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.C.Krishnakumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Girly Albert, Sr.DR

Section 36Section 40

income statement and though this aspect was also raised before the CIT (Appeals), he failed to consider this aspect also while disposing of the first appeal.” 3. At the time of hearing, the learned AR invited our attention to the written submissions filed by them before the ld.CIT

Anamika Conductors Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no orders as to cost

ITA 40/JPR/2024[A.Y. 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2024

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 145(3)Section 14A

same, 30% of the said expenses being Rs. 34,46,415/- is hereby disallowed and added in the income of the assessee.’’ 4.3 In first appeal,, the ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that the issue of section 145(3) is general in nature

Dalas Biotech Limited, Bhiwadi vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Alwar

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

ITA 147/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv (Physical)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 40Section 68

being disallowed In accordance with the provisions of section 40a(ia) and section 195(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.’’ 3.2 In first appeal, ld. CIT(A) has dismissed this ground of the assessee by observing as under:- ‘’10.4 In view of the above, as the appellant failed

Belark Communication P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed in aforesaid terms

ITA 870/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 48

total income at Rs. 17,42,330/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex-parte. 3. Assessee has filed this second appeal on the ground that learned CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the interest expenses

Rkw Communication Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed in terms of what is noted hereinabove

ITA 869/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 48

assessee at Rs. 17,42,330/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex-parte. 3. Assessee has filed this second appeal on the ground that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of interest expenses

Ram Kumar, Nehru Garden Colony vs. ITO Ward 2 Kaithal, Aaykar Bhawan, Ambala Road Kaithal

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 416/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar Singla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 69

aggrievd by order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/023-24/1061111720(1) dt. 19/02/2024 of Ld. CIT(A) which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order” passed in first appeal under section 250 of the Act. Factual Matrix 4. The Department of Income Tax basis information received from the system, noticed that the assessee ... under section 143(3) and 147 of the Act. 13. That the assessee being aggrieved by the assessment order dt. 11/12/2018 as aforesaid preferred first appeal under section 246A of the Act, before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the impugned order has dismissed the appeal of the assessee

Ram Kumar, Nehru Garden Colony vs. ITO Ward 2, Kaithal

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 415/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar Singla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 69

Kuldeep Singh, Sas Nagar, Punjab vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(5), Chandigarh

ITA 362/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Danish Abdullah, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 253

this order alongwith demand notice is sent to the assessee. 12. The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order dt. 11/11/2019 filed first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) under section 246A of the Act who by impugned order has sustained the findings of the Ld. AO (supra ... placed reliance on the impugned order. The Ld. DR has contended that the assessee did not appear and pursued his remedy of first appeal at all before the Ld. CIT(A) despite opportunities on 04/03/2021, 22/12/2023 and 03/01/2024 as is recorded in para 4.1 of the impugned order. Findings

Armed Forces Ex-Officers Multiservices Co-Operative Society Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officers NFAC, Pune

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

ITA 787/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: CA Shweta JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

declared by the assessee in his original return of income. 4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. After 4 considering the reply of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC confirmed the disallowance of Rs.1

Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Ahmednagar. vs. Kanhur Pathar Multi State Co-Operative Credit Society Maryadit, Kanhur, Kanhur Dist. Ahmednagar

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

ITA 766/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S. BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

after set-off of the losses of Rs 4,66,64,995. 6. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. After considering the reply of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC allowed the appeal of the assessee ... assessment order is hereby deleted. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is fully allowed.” 7. It is against the above first appeal order, the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 8. The ld. DR submitted before us that the order passed

Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Ahmednagar., Aayakar, Bhavan, Behind Natraj Hotel, Aurangabad Road vs. Kanhur Pathar Multi State Co-Operative Credit Society Maryadit Kanhur, Kanhur Dist. Ahmednagar

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

ITA 765/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S. BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Jankalyan Multistate Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Solapur Maharashtra vs. ITO, Ward One (One)

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

ITA 561/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.561/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jankalyan Multistate Co- Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Solapur. Operative Credit Society Limited, 940, Jagjivandas Complex, Near Garud Bangal Sadar Bazar, Solapur - 413003. Pan : Aabaj3074H Appellant Respondent Assessee By None (Written Submission Filed) : Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.02.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of Case & In Law, Ao & Cit(A), Niac Was Correct In Disallowing The Deduction When The Income Is Part Of Business Of Assessee & Eligible For Deduction.

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 234Section 4Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

income at Rs.56,09,466/- as against Rs.Nil income declared by the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. After 3 considering the reply of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal and confirmed

Bsm Shelter Estate India, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer 1(3), Indore

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 291/IND/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Sept 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniita No. 291/Ind/2024(Ay: 2015-16) Bsm Shelter Estate India Ito 1(3), बनाम/ Private Limited, Indore Vs. 27/2/3, Gram Bhangarb, Near Mr-10, Indore (Pan: Aafcb3409E) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

that the delay has occurred due to the fact that the assessee’s previous counsel failed to keep the track of the assessee’s first-appeal before CIT(A) and did not attend hearings fixed by CIT(A) and even the counsel was not aware of the impugned order which ... facts, it is clearly discernible that the assessee’s authorised counsel, who was dealing matters before CIT(A), failed to keep the track of first appeals before CIT(A) and failed to take note of the impugned order dated 09.02.2023 having been passed ex-parte by CIT(A) against assessee

Bsm Shelter Estate India Private Limited, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer 1(3), Indore

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 290/IND/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Sept 2024AY 2015-2016

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Neha Wadhwa, Kota vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 950/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Sh. C M Birla, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 68

nature and source of credit or explanation offered by him is not satisfactory. In our case explanation is offered right from assessment stage to first appeal stage which is supported by Balance Sheet attached to ROI for AY 2015-16. Balance of Rs.873500/- is not disputed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Sh. Naval Kishore, Kota

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and that of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 456/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Section 139Section 143Section 153A

# vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;i qj U;k;ihB] t;i qj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR

Income Tax Office, Ward-6(2), Jaipur vs. Medical Designs India Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 236/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ratan Lal Goyal (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

assessee contended that as notices were issued at the wrong address. They have sufficient reason to advance the additional evidence in the first appeal and thereby an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules vide which following additional evidence was placed on record: e copy of agreement

Naval Kishore, Kota vs. ACIT DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and that

ITA 205/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. Anil Dhaka (CIT)

Section 139Section 143Section 153ASection 234ASection 68

ara attcita after, cage =aradis, ayR IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,"B” JAIPUR Sho Va. Corer, ae

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle, Jaipur, Jaipur Rajasthan vs. Navratan Vidha Mandir Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur Rajasthan

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

ITA 201/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(d)Section 145(3)

specified purpose. Accordingly, he considered development receipt of Rs.2,27,78,950/- as revenue receipt and made addition for the same. 4.3.3 In first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) after reproducing the submission of the assessee and the case laws relied upon at Page 3 to 13 of the order ... Accordingly, he made addition of Rs.1,62,86,091/- by denying exemption u/s 11 of the Act on this amount. In first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) at Page 25 Para 8.4 held that out of Rs.1,62,86,091/- an amount of Rs.6,26,000/- is amount advanced