“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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut vs. Solitaire Food Private Limited, New Delhi

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 379/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.379/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Dcit, Vs Solitaire Food Private Ltd., 108, 1St Floor, Meerut. No.53, Hasanpur Village, Patparganj, New Delhi – 110 092. Pan: Aalcs5930M

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 68

Kanpur, which was later on transferred to Ld. CIT(A)-3, Noida. Assessee claims that during the course of the first appeal proceedings, the assessee submitted confirmation, ITR’s and Bank statements of all the share applicants in explanation of the share application money received during the relevant year ... aforesaid by relying the written submissions dated 15.02.2023 as filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), during the course of the first appeal proceedings and referred to copies of confirmations, ITR filling proofs and bank statements of all the 5 share applicants, in explanation of the identity, creditworthiness

Kissan Fats Ltd., Bathinda vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 408/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250(6)Section 253

Income Tax Act, 1961 as and by way of second appeal under the Act. The assessee is aggrieved by order dt. 01/05/2023 passed in first appeal bearing No. 10408/2012-13/IT/CIT(A)- 5/Ldh/2021-22 of Ld. CIT(A) under section 250(6) of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned ... assessed income. 12. The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Ld. AO dated 23/03/2022 prefers first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 13. The Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order has stated that the assessment in the case was completed under section 147 of the Act wherein

Teer Foudation, Nashik vs. CIT (Exemption) Pune, Pune

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in above terms

ITA 985/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No. 0985/Pun/2024 Teer Foundation D3-, Vitthal Garden Rh, Iti-Ambad Link Rd., Trimurti Chowk, Nashik-422008 Pan:Aaict6392B . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Ajaykumar Kesari

Section 12ASection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

12AB of the Act in the case of assessee was rejected by the Ld. registering authority and when the subject-matter travelled in first appeal before the Tribunal, the Ld. Co-ordinate bench vide its order in ITA 023/PUN/2023 dt. 13/04/2023 remanded the issue back to the file

Navyoug Vikas Nagri Sahakari Pathpedi Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, 3(1), Thane

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3238/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Learned Cit(A) On 20.02.2023 Against The Order Dated 29.10.2020, Which Was Communicated To The Assessee On 31.10.2020. Learned Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Merely Upon Rejection Of Assessee’S Application For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Same. Further, Submitted To Condone The Said Delay Caused In Filing First Appeal & To Direct Learned Cit(A) To Decide The Matter Afresh On Merit After Affording An Opportunity Of Hearing To The Assessee.

Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

same. 2. At the very outset, learned representative for the appellant assessee has, apart from the merits of the case, submitted that the first appeal was filed before learned CIT(A) on 20.02.2023 against the order dated 29.10.2020, which was communicated to the assessee on 31.10.2020. Learned ... upon rejection of assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing the same. Further, submitted to condone the said delay caused in filing first appeal and to direct learned CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh on merit after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. Learned

DCIT-CC-4(2), Mumbai vs. Raheja Universal Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4847/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Respondent: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, CA

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 22Section 23(1)(a)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Shilp Gravures Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 798/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Division Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen

For Appellant: Shri S N Divatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 8Section 80I

dated 02.12.2019, was Rs. 10,29,41,620/- as against returned income of Rs. 8,72,74,960/-. 4.Aggrieved , the assesee filed first appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The assesee had relied on the orders of this Tribunal assessee’s own case for assessment year

V. Arokiaraj, Vridhachalam vs. ITO Ward 5, Cuddalore

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

ITA 1421/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1421/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-2013) V. Arokiaraj, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Old No.6/109, New No.9/45, Ward 5, North Street, Cuddalore. Kunankurichi, Vridhachalam 607 803. [Pan: Akcpa 1663P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Irs, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, IRS, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 69A

section 147 of the Act dated 24.12.2019 before the Ld.CIT(A) wherein the assessee neither appeared nor submitted any submissions before the first appeal authority. Accordingly, the assessment was confirmed on merits against which assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. None appeared before us for the assessee

S. Arulpragasam, Vridhachalam vs. ITO Ward 5, Cuddalore

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

ITA 1420/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1420/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-2013) S. Arulpragasam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 4/20, South Street, Ward 5, Kunankurichi, Cuddalore. U Mangalam, Vridhachalam 607 804. [Pan: Ahupa 2988C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri () This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)(Nfac) Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 30.10.2023 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Assessee Is An Individual & Has Made Substantial Cash Deposit Into His Savings Bank Account But Did Not File The Return Of Income. Therefore, On The Basis Of The Same, The Case Of The Assessee Has Been Reopened U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’). The Assessee, Thereafter Filed His Return Of Income On 09.09.2019 For Ay 2012-13 Admitting A Total Income Of Rs.2,58,000/-. The Assessee Has Also Filed A Letter Dated 09.09.2019 Explaining The Cash Deposits Made In Bank. However, The Ao Has Passed Order Under Section 144 R.W. Section 147 Of The Act Dated 24.12.2019 An Addition Of Rs.43,57,595/- Under Section 69A Of The Act Rejecting The Explanation Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, IRS, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 69A

Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia, Khandwa vs. ACIT- (Central) Ujjain, Ujjain

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

ITA 227/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 40A(3)Section 69

these appeals. The AO made assessments of these three AYs after making certain disallowances/additions. The assessee carried matters in first-appeal and succeeded to a large extent. Now, the revenue/assessee have come in these appeals. Revenue’s ITA No. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 – AY 2015-16 & 2016-17: 4. The grounds raised ... Ultimately, the AO computed yearwise figures of cash payments for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 and made disallowances in respective years. 8. During first-appeal, the CIT(A) reversed AO’s action and deleted disallowance by passing following order: “3.2.2 I have considered the facts of the case, material

DCIT- (Central)-3, Indore vs. Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia, Khandwa

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

ITA 207/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 40A(3)Section 69

DCIT- (Central)-3, Indore vs. Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia, Khandwa

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

ITA 206/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 40A(3)Section 69

Punjab State Coop. Bank Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Cl-2(1), Chandigarh

In the result the impugned order of Ld

ITA 293/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Atul Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 80P(2)(a)

wherein aforesaid has been added to return of income. 7. The assesseee society being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Ld. AO prefers first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and interalia contends that addition of Rs. 12,39,000/- being the amount of premium paid on “purchase

M/S Headmaster Saloon Pvt.Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT-Circle-1(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 111/CHANDI/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manpreet Duggal, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 253

justified. Upon failure law of the land will prevail or to take course. Thus we want a meritorious disposal of at least the first appeal of the assessee before Ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) has all powers at his disposal for effective disposal in just and fair manner ... hereinabove we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to adjudge and adjudicate 32 first appeal on merits and on other issues too as soon as possible preferably within 3 months from date of receipt of this order

Rajan Arputharaj Vincent Naveen, Chennai vs. Addl/JCIT A-3, Chennai

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

ITA 1198/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1198/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 Rajan Arputharaj Vincent Naveen, Vs. The Acit/Dy. Commissioner Of No. 30, Aadijan Street, Income Tax, Mandaveli 600 028, Chennai. Non Corporate Ward 1(1), Chennai. [Pan: Ahcpn5701A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Subramaniam, C.A. & Ms. Sailas, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) /Addl/Jcit (A)-3, Bengaluru For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of Six Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Explaining Reasons For The Said Delay & Prayed For Condonation Of That Delay. On Perusal Of The Condonation Petition & Upon Hearing Both The Parties, We Find That The 2

For Appellant: Shri K. Subramaniam, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 54Section 54F

wherein, the CPC accepted the said return under section 143(1) of the Act vide order dated 16.11.2019, against which, the assessee instituted first appeal on 21.11.2013 with a delay of 635 days. We note that the assessee raised additional ground by stating that the assessee was prevented in claiming

Chetana Financial Services Private Limited, Haveri vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Davanegere

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

ITA 912/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Varun Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115BSection 68

determined at Rs.75,49,764. 3. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). During the first appeal proceedings, the assessee field written submissions which has been incorporated in the FAA’s order. However, after considering the detailed submissions, the ld. FAA dismissed

DCIT-13(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Riva Resorts Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 481/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 68Section 80I

Rs.1,64,000/- on account of expenditure on increase of share capital 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved against the following three additions/disallowances, preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner: Sl. No. Amount Addition/Disallowance 1 Rs.12,45,309/- On account of unexplained cash credit qua new equity share application money

Jyoti Record Mfg Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Center, Bangalore, Banglore

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

ITA 2592/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT, DR

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

condoning the delay, ld. Sr. DR objected on the same, since there is a considerable delay of 1368 days in filing the first appeal. 5. We have heard both the parties and considered the material placed on record. The primary issue before us is on admission of the appeal ... above, if we examine the facts then it would reveal that there is a delay of 1368 days in filing of the first appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). In its submissions as reproduced in the order of ld. CIT(A), assessee has explained the reasons which

Voith Paper Gmbh & Co. Kg (Now Merged With J.M. Voith Se & Co. Kg), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Int. Taxation, Circle-2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2531/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.2531/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2015-16) Voith Paper Gmbh & Co. Kg, (Now Merged With J.M Voith Se & Co. Kg), C/O Mohinder Puri & Co. Cas 1A-D, Vandhna, 11 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi 110001 Pan: Aadcv-4876-D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle -2(1)(2), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Anuj Mathur & Ankit Nanda, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Vijay B Vasanta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 21/08/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeal) Delhi-43 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 27.03.2024, For Assessment Year 2015-16, Upholding Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: S/Shri Anuj Mathur, and Ankit Nanda, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee attributable to its PE. The AO while making addition also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In first appeal, the CIT(A) allowed part relief to the assessee. The profit attribution to the PE at the rate of 10% was reduced

Mahesh Chand, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Faridabad

In the result both the appeals being ITA no

ITA 1600/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 10Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69A

Appeals) erroneously dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that the assessee had not deposited the requisite advance tax before filing of the first appeal. Learned counsel contended that the assessee had received compensation on acquisition of agricultural land which is otherwise exempt and no advance tax is payable ... Herein also the learned CIT(Appeals) dismissed appeal in limine by observing that assessee had not deposited requisite advance tax before filing of the first appeal. No change in facts and circumstances has been pointed out by learned DR for the assessment year in question. Therefore, following our reasoning

Mahesh Chand, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Faridabad

In the result both the appeals being ITA no

ITA 1599/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 10Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69A