← 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

Tejal Nilesh Sorthi, Palghar vs. Income Tax Officer, Palghar

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1283/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Who Dismissed Assessee’S First Appeal In Default Of Assessee.

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 40A(3)

total income of the assessee. . Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal in default of assessee. . Assessee has filed this second appeal on the ground that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition

Nirmal Singh, Ludhiana vs. Assessing Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 99/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: This Tribunal. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-16. The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2014 To 31/03/2015. The Assesse Is Aggrieved By Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1058687656(1) Dated 12/12/2023 Of The Ld. Cit(A) Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Kaushal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 69A

appear and gave no explanation. We feel Ld. CIT(A) ought to have given one more opportunity of hearing to assessee before deciding the first appeal in exparte manner. We therefore hold impugned order to be in violation of principles of natural justice as prejudice is caused to assessee

Parminder Singh Grewal, Ludhiana vs. The Income Tax Officer, Jagraon

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

ITA 344/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 253Section 69A

terms of Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order dated 22/12/2019 preferred a first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who by the impugned order has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned

Amit Vyas, Ujjain vs. Income Tax Officer 2(1), Ujjain

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 510/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Indore06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Amit Vyas, Income-Tax Officer, 103, Raghukul Apartment, 2(1), बनाम/ Kshpanak Marg, Ujjain Vs. Ujjain (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aefpv4664L Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.09.2024

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

bank a/c on 16.01.2015 and thereby determining total income at Rs. 46,12,360/-. 2.1 Aggrieved by AO’s order, the assessee filed first appeal to CIT(A) on 30.12.2019 with a huge delay of 669 days as calculated by CIT(A). The CIT(A) was not satisfied with ... also decided merit of addition and dismissed appeal on merit as well. Thus, the assessee did not get any success in first-appeal. 2.2 Now, the assessee has come before us by way of next appeal. 3. At first, we extract the relevant paras in which

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-3(4), Mumbai vs. Idbi Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the three appeals ITA no

ITA 4320/MUM/2023[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2001-2002
Section 244ASection 244A(1)Section 250

ordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2004-05. We accordingly hold that learned CIT(A), in first appeal has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee in directing the assessing officer to examine the computation of refund including interest u/s. 244A

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Idbi Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the three appeals ITA no

ITA 4319/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2012-2013
Section 244ASection 244A(1)Section 250

ordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2004-05. We accordingly hold that learned CIT(A), in first appeal has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee in directing the assessing officer to examine the computation of refund including interest u/s. 244A

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-3(4) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Idbi Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the three appeals ITA no

ITA 4318/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2013-2014
Section 244ASection 244A(1)Section 250

ordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2004-05. We accordingly hold that learned CIT(A), in first appeal has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee in directing the assessing officer to examine the computation of refund including interest u/s. 244A

Deputy Comisssioner of Income Tax Circle 3(4), Mumbai vs. Idbi Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3430/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI BR BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 263Section 40

dated 22/01/2015 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who partly allowed first appeal by deleting the disallowance of expenses u/s. 40(a)(ia) amounting to Rs 58,25,41,577/- and disallowance of Rs. 1,04,245/- on account of depreciation

Ishwar Chander Pahuja, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 19(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2560/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanishwar Chander Pahuja, Vs. Acit, Circle 19 (1), C/O Sumer Garg & Co., Cas New Delhi. E-501A, Itl Northex Tower, Plot No.A – 9, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi – 110 034. (Pan : Aafpp4275M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Garg, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 Date Of Order : 06.09.2024 Order The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 21.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld. Ao Erred In Law & On Facts In Disallowing The Claim Of The Assessee Of Having Earned Agricultural Income At Rs.23,36,957/- & The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Ao Treating The Same As Bogus Without Making Any Verification In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 10(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 234ASection 44A

sale of seeds purchased from the assessee as per details submitted with your honor on 24.06.2024 (69 Pages). 6. Observation of NFAC in First Appeal: The assessee submitted before NFAC that throughout the assessment proceedings the Ld. AO had raised only one query i.e. how the expenses incurred for agricultural

Astt. Commisioner of Income Tax, Lucknow vs. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 66/LKW/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 The Asstt. Commissioner V. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd Of Income Tax B-9, Vibhuti Khand Central Circle Ii Gomti Nagar Lucnow Lucknow Pan:Aadca5639H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.19/Lkw/2017 [In Ita No.66/Lkw/2017] Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd V. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-9, Vibhuti Khand Income Tax Gomti Nagar Central Circle Ii Lucknow Lucnow Pan:Aadca5639H (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Neil Jain, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 80Section 80I

issued on the premise of escaped assessment referable to section 148 of the I.T Act. This position notwithstanding, when an assessment is subjected to first appeal or further appeals under the I.T Act or all questions germane for concluding the assessment would be relevant and claims which may result

Bharat Keshavlal Shah, Pune vs. Dy. CIT Circle 5, Pune

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

ITA 799/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.799/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Bharat Keshavlal Shah, Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. 27, Bharat Pushpa, Sujay Garden, Mukundnagar, Pune- 411037. Pan : Adxps3821M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Jha Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Assessee Requests For Condonation Of Delay Of 62 Days In Filing The Appeal Since There Was A Reasonable Cause On The Part Of The Assessee In Not Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee For Want Of Prosecution On The Ground That The Assessee Had Not Filed Any Submissions & Hence Was Not Interested In Pursuing The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Jha
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 56(2)(vii)

r.w.s. 263 of the IT Act was passed by determining the taxable income at Rs.10,26,42,678/-. The assessee preferred first appeal against the above re-assessment order. 5. Since the assessee remained absent [as per ld. CIT(A)/NFAC], the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal

Mr Ramsoch Dashrath Yadav, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(4), Pune

Appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 1048/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 144Section 250(6)

Arvind Desai could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the Assessing Officer had framed his impugned assessment on 17.12.2019 and the assessee preferred his first appeal on 24.05.2022. Meaning thereby, that the learned CIT(A)-NFAC has included Covid-2019 pandemic outbreak period from between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, which period

Ram Vinod Agrawal, Dhule vs. CIT, Central Circle 1 Dhule, Dhule

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

ITA 1435/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shir Rohit TapadiyaFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

assessment order dated 16.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act. 4. Against the above said assessment order, the assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. After considering the reply of the assessee, by an order dated 26.10.2013, The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed ... duty bound to decide each and every ground raised by the assessee in the appeal, either legal or factual. From perusal of the first appeal order, it is apparent that the above-mentioned three legal grounds were not adjudicated which is a mistake apparent on the face of the record

Sujatabai Shesherao Bansode, Latur vs. ITO, Ward 4, Latur

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

ITA 950/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.950/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sujatabai Shesherao Vs. Ito, Ward-4, Latur. Bansode, Bhim Nagar Atp & Tq Ahmedpur, Latur- 413515. Pan : Aplpb6172Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1] On The Facts & In The Circumstances The Learned Cit(A) Nfac Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Condoning The Delay In Filing Appeal On The Ground That The Reasons For Delay Are Not Found To Be Satisfactory. 2] The Learned Cit(A) Has & On Facts In Not Appreciating That The Reasons For Delay Were Beyond The Control Of The Appellant & Were Genuine For Which The Delay Ought To Have Be Condoned & Appeal Ought To Have Decided On Merits.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade
Section 10(37)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 96

Assessing Officer brought to tax the interest amount received on enhanced compensation of agricultural land. The assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC 3 belatedly and the same was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC without condoning the delay. It is this first appeal order against

The Sirur Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Pune vs. ACIT, Exemtion Circle, Pune

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

ITA 609/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

claimed u/s 11 of the IT Act was not allowed. 5. Being aggrieved with this intimation order, the assessee society/trust filed first appeal before the ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Chennai, who vide impugned order dated 31.01.2024 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. It is against this order, the assessee ... benefit of exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the IT Act. It is also found that when ld. Addl./JCIT(A) passed the first appeal order the assessee trust was already approved by CIT(Exemption), Pune u/s 12A of the IT Act for five assessment years i.e. from assessment year

Alagu Process, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Tiruppur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 695/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.695/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Alagu Process, The Income Tax Officer, S.F No.414, Vs. Ward-2(1), Palavanjipalayam Ring Road, Tiruppur. Veerapandi Post, Tirupur – 641 605. [Pan: Aavfa 5147P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Erode), Advocate ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of : 04.09.2024 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter “Cit(A)”] In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/105992446(1), Dated 19.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Assessing Officer For The Assessment Year 2017-18 U/S.147 R.W.S

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Erode), AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

considering the records pertaining to the appeal proceeding properly including the replies, explanations and evidences filed by the Appellant during the course of the First Appeal Proceeding. 3. Without prejudice, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in making separate addition of Cash Deposits made during the Demonetization Period, when, admittedly

Deputy Commissioner (Exemptions), Chennai, Income Tax vs. Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science, Chennai

ITA 611/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 611/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai. Hindustan Institute Of Technology & Science, 40, Gst Road, St Thomas Mount, Chennai - 600 016. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaath-6508-A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By Shri R. Venkatesh, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 26.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of 04.09.2024 Pronouncement आदेश / Order Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Nfac], Delhi (Hereinafter “Cit(A)] In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1059507197(1), Dated 09.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai For The

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 3(1)

before the CIT(A) along with copies of the evidences and facts relied upon in the Paper Book. The submissions made and adjudicated in first appeal are reproduced hereunder: It was submitted that the conclusion of the Ld. AO is erroneous and that the Assessee had correctly claimed the eligible

Gajanan Motiram Patil, Dombivli vs. Income Tax Officer-3(2) Kalyan, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3386/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee's first appeal as ex- parte. 3. Assessee has filed this second appeal on the ground that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 25,87,570/- and in dismissing assessee's appeal ex-parte without affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Further, submitted to condone the delay in filing this appeal. 4. In response to the notice issued by the tribunal, learned DR appeared and participated in the hearing. 3

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment year [A.Y.] 2010-11, wherein learned CIT(A) has 2 Gajanan Motiram Patil dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex-parte upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay. 2. The brief facts under appeal state that the assessee ... assessed total income of the assessee at Rs. 25,80,570/-. Assessee filed an appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal as ex- parte. 3. Assessee has filed this second appeal on the ground that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition

Jitendra Salunke, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -42(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3363/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Who Dismissed Assessee’S Appeal In Default Of Assessee. 3. Assessee Filed This Second Appeal Before This Tribunal On The Ground That The Notices Were Not Sent Through Nfac & Impugned Order Has Been Passed In Violation Of The Principles Of Natural Justice.

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the 2 Jitendra Salunke Assessment year [A.Y.] 2016-17, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal in default of assessee. 2. Briefly stating the facts, that assessee filed his return of income on 29.10.2016 declaring total income ... avail. Learned DR has supported impugned order passed by the first appellate authority. 7. Perusal of the impugned order shows that assessee filed first appeal with the delay of about 265 days. Learned CIT(A), however condoned the said delay on the basis of reasons stated in form

Jitendra Salunke, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Offier-42(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3361/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

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

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 250(6)

Income- tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment year [A.Y.] 2017-18, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal in default of assessee. 2. The brief facts of the appeal state that appellant assessee filed its return of income through Shri Vijay Sawant ... avail. Learned DR has supported impugned order passed by the first appellate authority. 7. Perusal of the impugned order shows that assessee filed first appeal with the delay of about 260 days. Learned CIT(A) condoned the said delay on the basis of reasons stated in form 35. The first