← 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

Income Tax Officer, Greams Road Income Tax Office vs. K Ansari, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1358/CHNY/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1357/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1358/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito Mr. K. Ansari बनाम/ #6/1, Parameshwari Nagar International Taxation Ward -1(1) Vs. 4Th Street, Adyar, Chennai-600 020. Chennai-6. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akhpa-5381-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Fca)-Ld.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07-08-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (FCA)-Ld.AR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

remand report is thus quite favorable to the assessee. The fate of FT & TR report has already been considered by Ld. CIT(A) in first appeal order for AY 2006- 07 as well as appeal order for impugned years. Upon perusal of information supplied by M/s Supreme Cargo, it could

Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department Greams Road vs. K Ansari, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1357/CHNY/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1357/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1358/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito Mr. K. Ansari बनाम/ #6/1, Parameshwari Nagar International Taxation Ward -1(1) Vs. 4Th Street, Adyar, Chennai-600 020. Chennai-6. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akhpa-5381-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Fca)-Ld.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07-08-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (FCA)-Ld.AR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

remand report is thus quite favorable to the assessee. The fate of FT & TR report has already been considered by Ld. CIT(A) in first appeal order for AY 2006- 07 as well as appeal order for impugned years. Upon perusal of information supplied by M/s Supreme Cargo, it could

Ali Mohmmed Vali Mohmmed Hingora, Parbhani vs. ITO Hingoli, Parbhani

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

ITA 789/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.710 & 789/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ali Mohmmed Vali Mohmmed Vs. Ito, Hingoli, Parbhani Hingora, Basmath Road, Karegaon- 431401. Pan : Anopk6571F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Agiwal Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 13.02.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Respectively. 2. Since Both The Appeals Were Heard Together, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of Both The Appeals By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 144Section 271ASection 69A

grounds of appeal.” 6. From perusal of above grounds of appeal, it is found that LD CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the first appeal on the ground of delay of about 18 months. It is further found that the matter involves imposition of penalty of Rs.37,200/- u/s 271AAC ... parte order of penalty was not known to the assessee & therefore as soon as he came to know about the ex-parte orders, the first appeal was filed with a delay of about 18 months through a new counsel. Under these circumstances, it was requested before the bench

Ali Mohmmed Vali Mohmmed Hingora, Parbhani vs. ITO Hingoli, Parbhani

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

ITA 710/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.710 & 789/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ali Mohmmed Vali Mohmmed Vs. Ito, Hingoli, Parbhani Hingora, Basmath Road, Karegaon- 431401. Pan : Anopk6571F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Agiwal Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 13.02.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Respectively. 2. Since Both The Appeals Were Heard Together, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of Both The Appeals By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 144Section 271ASection 69A

grounds of appeal.” 6. From perusal of above grounds of appeal, it is found that LD CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the first appeal on the ground of delay of about 18 months. It is further found that the matter involves imposition of penalty of Rs.37,200/- u/s 271AAC ... parte order of penalty was not known to the assessee & therefore as soon as he came to know about the ex-parte orders, the first appeal was filed with a delay of about 18 months through a new counsel. Under these circumstances, it was requested before the bench