“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

Raigad Zilha Prathamik Shikshak Sahakari Pathpedi Limited, Alibaug, Raigad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Three, Panvel

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

ITA 515/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 154Section 5Section 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(f)

Therefore, there is no mistake apparent from the record, the application of assessee is hereby rejected. Being aggrieved with this order, the assessee preferred first appeal before LD CIT(A)/NFAC, who vide impugned order dated 10-11-2023, after considering the reply of the assessee, dismissed the appeal ... assessee. 3 3. Being aggrieved with this first appeal order the assessee preferred second appeal before this Tribunal. 4. LD AR submitted before us that the summery order passed u/s 154 of the IT Act by the AO as well as the first appeal order passed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Nisha Jain, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

ITA 377/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 131Section 131(1)Section 133A

made on account of Security Service expense, Business Promotion Expense, Traveling Expenses and various other expenses u/s 37(1) were made. In the first appeal the ld. CIT(A) vide its order dt. 12.02.2019 reduced these disallowances to Rs.5 Lakhs (APB 214-221). Thus, the expenses 9 ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE ... were not even rejected by the AO. Some of these expenses had even faced scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) and were subject to first appeal. More importantly, in the 2nd remand report dated 19.12.2023, the AO himself has verified the complete accounts and thereafter given his positive report. Hence, Revenue

Jaipur Engineering College Jaipur Rajasthan Society, Jaipur vs. Circle (Exemption), Jaipur

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

ITA 261/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 164(2)

invoked, exemption u/s 11 was denied and thus surplus as per income & expenditure account of Rs.75,01,881/- was charged to tax. 4.2 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) at Page 13-17 upheld the order of the AO in taxing the surplus by not allowing exemption ... required. No evidence is filed as to who use to stay in the flat and how it benefitted the assessee. 5.3 In first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC held that assessee has not disputed the fact that scholarship paid to the persons is covered

Sardarbhai Ramsangbhai Dhuliya, Palanpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Previously Ward-5, Palanpur

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

ITA 899/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad , Which Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 22-05-2023 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1053040290(1)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 253(3)Section 69A

assessment was finalized by the A.O. u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, vide reassessment order dated 29.12.2018. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal with Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) issued as many as ten notices to the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings , as detailed ... tune of Rs. 1,756/- , which were not offered by the assessee for taxation, as no return of income was filed. The assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A) and in statement of fact , it is stated that Rs. 6,05,180/- credited in the bank account is towards

The Khedbrahma Taluka Primary Teachers Co.Op. Credit Society Ltd., Himatnagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Himatnagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 115/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad , Which

For Appellant: Shri Rushin Patel, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Bhavnasingh Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 80P(2)(d)

with respect to interest received by the assessee from The Sabarkantha District Central Co-operative Bank, Khedbrahma. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A), which stood dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) by mainly relying on the judgment and order of Hon’ble Supreme Court

Sheetal Collection, Jalgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Jalgaon

ITA 1074/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S Sheetal Collection Shop No. 16, Fule Market, Jalgaon-425001 Pan: Acifs1530K. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jalgaon. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr V V Kawdia [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/08/2024 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; Against Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1063185555(1) Dt. 22/03/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeal-11 Pune [‘Cit(A)’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jalgaon [‘Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2014-15 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter] The Assessee Is In Appeal. 2. Tersely Stated The Facts Of The Case Are That; 2.1 The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Engaged In Retail Trading Business Of Readymade Garments. During The Year Under Consideration A Survey Action U/S 133A Of The Act On The Assessee Firm Was Carried Out & A Statement Of Its Partner Was Recorded. In Answering To Question Number 16 The Partner Declared/Admitted Certain

For Appellant: Mr V V Kawdia [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

added the same and accordingly framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. 2.3 Aggrieved assessee contested the former solitary addition in first appeal unsuccessfully, hence brought-up the one in present appeal on a sole ground as; Under the facts and circumstances of the case

Suhas Maruti Dhankude, Pune vs. JCIT (OSD)- Central Circle 2(4), Pune

Appeals of the assessee are ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in above terms

ITA 1061/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr UK Chavan [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 127(1)Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 253(1)

outset of physical hearing, the rival parties sought our attention to the impugned consolidated order and commonly submitted that the legal ground raised before first appeal challenging the very jurisdiction of assessing the income of the assessee u/s 144 r.w.s. 153C of the Act was dismissed

Suhas Maruti Dhankude, Pune vs. JCIT-(OSD)- Central Circle 2(4), Pune

Appeals of the assessee are ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in above terms

ITA 1060/PUN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr UK Chavan [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 127(1)Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 253(1)

Suhas Maruti Dhankude, Pune vs. JCIT (OSD)- Central Circle 2(4) Pune, Pune

Appeals of the assessee are ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in above terms

ITA 1056/PUN/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr UK Chavan [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 127(1)Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 253(1)

Suhas Maruti Dhankude, Pune vs. JCIT (OSD)- Central Circle 2(4) Pune, Pune

Appeals of the assessee are ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in above terms

ITA 1055/PUN/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr UK Chavan [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 127(1)Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 253(1)

Lahari Impex Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 269/HYD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 269/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Lahari Impex (P) Ltd, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Ward-16(1,) [Pan : Aaacl4109L] Ahmedabad/ Hyderabad अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri J.J. Varun, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Dr

For Appellant: Shri J.J. Varun, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR

merits by condoning the delay. Page 2 of 3 6. With this view of the matter, we condone the delay in filing the First appeal before the learned CIT(A) , set aside the impugned order and the rest of the appeal to the file of the learned

Govindam Export, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Jaipur, Rajasthan

ITA 433/JPR/2024[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2024AY 2003-2004

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Agarwal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 260ASection 80H

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Govindam Export, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Jpr, Jaipur, Rajasthan

In the results all the appeals filed by the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 429/JPR/2024[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2024AY 1998-99

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Agarwal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 260ASection 80H

first round and therefore, the same are not repeated. 13. Aggrieved from the finding of the ld. AO the assessee preferred the first appeal in the second round of litigation before the ld. CIT(A). The issue Govindam Export vs. DCIT raised by the assessee with that of the finding

M/S Pagro Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ITO, W-2(3), Chandigarh

The appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1076/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253

initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 25. The Assessee feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the AO’s order dt. 26/12/2016 had filed first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order has dismissed the same. The core finding of CIT(A) is as follows: “4.3 I have

Chandrakant Gordhanbhai Patel HUF, Dabhoi vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(3), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 485/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: The Final Hearing Of This Appeal Petition…”

For Appellant: None(Written Submission filed by the assessee)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

account of concealed interest income and same is added in the total income of the assesee. 4. Aggrieved , the assessee filed first appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee , by observing as under: 7. APPELLATE FINDINGS: I.T.A No.485/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No. 6 Chandrkant

Sheetal Sandeep Meher, Jalgaon vs. ITO, Ward1(2), Jalgaon

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

ITA 1000/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1000/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sheetal Sandeep Meher, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), 3Rd Floor, Pitruchaya Jalgaon. Building, Nehru Chowk, Navi Peth, Jalgaon- 425001. Pan : Aqupm5982D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By : Shri Umashankar Prasad Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.02.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Present Appeal Is Filed Belatedly I.E. With The Delay Of 13 Days. The Appellant Furnished An Affidavit Praying For Condonation Of Delay In The Circumstances Mentioned Therein.

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)

vide order dated 26-09-2021. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order the assessee preferred first appeal before LD CIT(A)/NFAC. 6. Since the assessee remained absent, ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution. Against this order, the assessee

Silver Wings Life Spaces, Kota vs. DCIT Circle-1 Kota, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 511/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Which Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra(Addl. CIT)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhidated 31/03/2024 [here in after (NFAC)/ Ld. CIT(A)]. It has arisen from the impugned order passed while dismissing first appeal by the assessee before Learned CIT(A), which appeal was filed by the assessee 2 Silver Wings Life Spaces vs DCIT, Kota challenging the assessment ... income of Rs. 2,06,60,000/- at the rate of 60% and Surcharge @25% +3% cess and raised the extra demand. 5. In first appeal assessee filed the detailed WS and legal position of law. The WS is reproduced from page 3 to 28 of the CIT(A) order