“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

Sheo Parshad, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 597/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 288Section 36

were carried out the CPC- Bangluru and intimation was issued enhancing the assessed income in the captioned assessment years. The CIT(A) in the first appeal has sustained the adjustments towards belated deposits of employees' contribution to PF/ESIC in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme

Alliance Vanashree Ventures, Pune vs. ITO Ward-12(1), Pune

The appeal is PARTLY ALLOWED

ITA 1458/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2015-16 Alliance Venashree Ventures Brahma Chambers, 4Th Flr., Sadashiv Peth, Pune-411030. Pan: Aaxfa1207G. . . . . . . . Appellant

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

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)

want of reasonable time to comply. In the absence of such details the impugned addition made by the Ld. AO was sustained in first appeal vide para 5 of the impugned order. 9. In the present appeal as well the assessee is indifferent, in the event countenancing the impugned addition

Smt. Lakshmi Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-4(5), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no orders as to costs

ITA 286/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: recording satisfaction for issuance of notice since the information is specific. Thus the reasons recorded for re-opening is on borrowed satisfaction and not on any satisfaction by the AO. The

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

account of alleged commission paid @ 6% of the sale value of shares of Comfort Intech Ltd. 3.3 In first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) at Page 17 to 29 of its order after referring to the various decisions including that in case of Swati Bajaj held that pre-ponderence

DCIT (Central) 1(1), Mumbai vs. Gold Star Diamonds Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals under consideration stands dismissed

ITA 3684/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Varsha A. Nanwani, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Sujatha P. Iyangar, Sr. A.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

direction/order dated 26.03.2018 u/s 263 of the Act by the Ld. CIT- Mumbai. Against the aforesaid assessment orders the Assessee has preferred first appeals before the Ld. Commissioner. The Ld. Commissioner vide impugned orders even dated 19.04.2024 for the A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2013-14, allowed the appeals of the Assessee

DCIT Central 1 (1), Mumbai vs. Gold Star Diamonds Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals under consideration stands dismissed

ITA 3683/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Varsha A. Nanwani, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Sujatha P. Iyangar, Sr. A.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

Marudhar Stock Trading Private Limited, Kalbadevi vs. Assistant Dorector of Income Tax CPC, CPC Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1496/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 143(4)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

adjustment of Rs. 1109420/- was made vide intimation u/s. 143(1) dated 20.01.2012. . Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee filed first appeal, which was dismissed by learned CIT(A) upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for the condonation of delay of 3712 days. . Aggrieved by the impugned order, assessee ... delay of 3712 days was caused. 9. 10. 11. ITA no.1496 /MUM/2024 Marudhar Stock Trading Private Limited It is pertinent to mention that the first appeal was instituted on 24.04.2023. The limitation period for filing an appeal before learned CIT(A) u/s. 249(2) of the Act is 30 days

ACIT Circle 54(1), New Delhi vs. Swadesh Kumar Mishra, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee i

ITA 6043/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144(1)Section 145(3)Section 24Section 40Section 40A(3)

Disallowance of expenses incurred in cash in excess of the limit prescribed u/s 40A(3) of the Act - Rs.50,000/-. 3. In the first appeal filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 35, New Delhi, ["CIT(A)/CIT-A"] the assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: Grounds of appeal ... deleted. 6. The assessee craves for the addition, modification, deletion of any of the grounds of appeal. 7. 4. In the course of first appeal proceedings the following additional grounds were raised by the assessee: The appellant has filed additional grounds of appeal vide letter dated 26.12.2018 which is reproduced

M/S. Varun Developers, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 2, Pune

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

ITA 613/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23(1)(c)Section 24Section 80I

order u/s 143(3) of the IT Act vide order dated 20-11-2018. 4. Aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC after considering the reply of the assessee allowed the deduction as claimed ... therefore we are of the considered view that the impugned addition of Rs.2,52,000/- made and as sustained in the first appeal, is not called for, thus is directed to be deleted.” 10. However, the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case