← 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

Assistant Commissiner of Income Tax, Kalyan vs. Stan Chem Pvt. Ltd., Ambernath East

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3299/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 68

loan lenders or individual who advanced such money. 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition before the Ld. Commissioner by filing first appeal and during the appellate proceedings filed the affidavit of the CA, who had signed the Form-3CD as well as the balance sheet along with

Ratika Saxena, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 34(4), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal is allowed as indicated above for

ITA 4140/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 68

appeal according to him are liable to be dismissed since could not be substantiated during the appellate proceedings. Ground no. 7 taken in first appeal about seeking of further ground of appeal including filing of supporting evidence, documents and details has been observed by Ld. CIT that the same remained

Shri Sampat Kacharu Dhage, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Nashik

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

ITA 1019/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Joshi (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)

therefore no advance tax was payable by him & therefore in such situation he was not supposed to pay any advance tax before filing the first appeal. In support of these contentions the counsel of the assessee relied on various decisions passed by coordinate benches of this Tribunal & also relied

Balaji Phosphates Limited, Indore vs. Dcitacit 1(1) Indore, Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 209/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibalaji Phosphates Limited, Dcitacit 1(1), 305, Utsav Avenue, Indore Vs. 12/5 Ushaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadcb5654R Assessee By Shri Subhash Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2024 O R D E R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234Section 40

rectification under section 154 of the Act to such apparent mistake but disposal of same was not reflected upto date of filing of first appeal due to started recovery proceeding against tax levied. Thus dismissal of appeal is illegal and bad in law. 8. On the facts and circumstances

Rahul Ashok Kamat, Mumbai vs. I.T.O., Ward-34(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 104/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(C)

penalty order dated 22.09.2022 (served on the same day) passed u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act by a delay of 199 days. First appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Authority solely upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay in filing the same. 6. The limitation ... view of uncontroverted affidavits filed by the assessee and his friend’s wife Ms. Devarakonda Gowthami, we, condone the said delay in filing the first appeal before the first appellate authority and restrain ourselves from making any observation in respect of the merits of the case. 10. In the result

Danabhai Bharvad, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 844/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) In Turn Has Arisen From The Assessment Order Dated 28-11- 2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act 1961. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With Tribunal, Reads As Under:- “1. The Assessing Officer & Commissioner Appeal Have Erred In Law & In Facts, In Considering The Cash Deposit As Un-Explained Cash Deposit.

For Appellant: Shri Mayur Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 249(4)Section 250Section 28

cheque of Rs. 2,50,000/- on 09.02.2020 in the bank account, which was not added by the AO. 4. Aggrieved , the assessee filed first appeal with Ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee , vide appellate order dated 28.02.2024 , on the ground that the assessee has not paid ... assessee with Bank of India, Samlaya, Tal. Savli, which was not added by the AO to the income of the assessee. The assessee filed first appeal before ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the grounds that the assessee did not deposited the advance tax amount

Falguni Shane Peacock, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3036/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 37Section 40Section 41(1)

accounts. He drew an adverse inference that assessee is not maintaining books of accounts and the audit undertaken could not be relied upon. The first appeal was thus dismissed, upholding the additions/disallowance made by the ld. Assessing Officer, totalling to Rs.1,46,01,304/- for Assessment Year 2009-10. Aggrieved

Falguni Shane Peacock, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3035/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 37Section 40Section 41(1)

accounts. He drew an adverse inference that assessee is not maintaining books of accounts and the audit undertaken could not be relied upon. The first appeal was thus dismissed, upholding the additions/disallowance made by the ld. Assessing Officer, totalling to Rs.1,46,01,304/- for Assessment Year 2009-10. Aggrieved

Falguni Shane Peacock, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CIT 22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3034/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 37Section 40Section 41(1)

accounts. He drew an adverse inference that assessee is not maintaining books of accounts and the audit undertaken could not be relied upon. The first appeal was thus dismissed, upholding the additions/disallowance made by the ld. Assessing Officer, totalling to Rs.1,46,01,304/- for Assessment Year 2009-10. Aggrieved

Falguni Shane Peacock, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comissioner of Income Tax CIT 22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3033/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 37Section 40Section 41(1)

accounts. He drew an adverse inference that assessee is not maintaining books of accounts and the audit undertaken could not be relied upon. The first appeal was thus dismissed, upholding the additions/disallowance made by the ld. Assessing Officer, totalling to Rs.1,46,01,304/- for Assessment Year 2009-10. Aggrieved

Falguni Shane Peacock, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3032/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 37Section 40Section 41(1)

accounts. He drew an adverse inference that assessee is not maintaining books of accounts and the audit undertaken could not be relied upon. The first appeal was thus dismissed, upholding the additions/disallowance made by the ld. Assessing Officer, totalling to Rs.1,46,01,304/- for Assessment Year 2009-10. Aggrieved

Anish Rajnikant Shah, Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad, Gujarat

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

ITA 200/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 68

assessee failed to explain the sources of cash deposit to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. 5. Aggrieved , the assessee filed first appeal with Ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Before Ld.CIT(A), the assesee stated that the assesee is in the business of retail

Rajendra Kumar Meena, Gangapur vs. ITO Ward-2 Sawamadhopur, Gangapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 516/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Meena (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 234A

made addition of Rs.46,00,000/- without invoking any provisions of the act and without referring any head of income. In first appeal the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the order of the ld. AO without going in to consideration material available on record. Hence this appeal. SUBMISSIONS: 1. Invalid

Rana Kapoor, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand

ITA 451/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 147Section 250Section 28

addition of Rs.300 crores under the provisions of section 28(iv) of the Act. The assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who though sent various notices to the assessee, however, the assessee neither complied with the notices nor attended the appellate

Rana Kapoor, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 6(4), Mumbai

ITA 450/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 147Section 250Section 28

addition of Rs.300 crores under the provisions of section 28(iv) of the Act. The assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who though sent various notices to the assessee, however, the assessee neither complied with the notices nor attended the appellate

Sri Anjaneya Vividoddesha Souharda Sahakari Niyamita, Harihara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Davanagere

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

ITA 1197/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ramanagowdar S Gowda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 5

assessment order for the AY 2017-18 was passed on 07/12/2019 and aggrieved by the impugned order, the Deponent had filed first appeal before the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income tax (appeal) National Faceless appeal centre, New Delhi. 4. The said appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Commissioner

Farees Ahmed Khalil Ahmed, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-23(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1682/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. K GopalFor Respondent: Mr. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 69

After considering the reasons given by the assessee causing of appeal. After considering the reasons given by the assessee causing delay in filing of first appeal, we are satisfied that the delay in filing of delay in filing of first appeal, we are satisfied that the delay in filing ... delay in filing of first appeal, we are satisfied that the delay in filing of appeal was for the bonafide reasons and not intentional. Thus, delay of 101 appeal was for the bonafide reasons and not intentional. Thus, delay of 101 appeal was for the bonafide reasons and not intentional

Hero Motocorp Ltd (As Successor of Hero Investment P.Ltd), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 11(1), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1053/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)

alleging the same to be “benefit” accrued to the appellant on acquisition of 26% stake in HHML from Honda, at discount. On first appeal, the CIT(A), vide impugned order dated 28.03.2023, agreed to the contentions of the assessing officer in toto and dismissed the appeal of the appellant

Baba Shivaji Khawale, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-8(3), Pune

ITA 859/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17 Baba Shivaji Khawale, 1264, Near Nagraj Body Builder, Chikhali, Pune-411062. Pan: Bqapk3725R. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Pune. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr B B Mane Through Mr Ankesh[‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 23/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/07/2024 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Assessee Is In Appeal Against The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfas/S/250/2023- 24/1062105966(1) Dt. 06/03/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Nfac’ Hereinafter] Passed Which In Turn Confirmed The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act By The National Faceless Assessment Centre [‘Neac’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2016-17 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter];

For Appellant: Mr B B Mane through Mr Ankesh[‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250Section 69A

more opportunity to the assessee we deem it fit to set-aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the stage of first appeal with a direction to the Ld. NFAC to decide the issue de-novo in accordance with law preferably in three effective opportunities and pass

Vinayak Janrao Kolasakar, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Nashik

ITA 51/PUN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18 Vinayak Janrao Kolasakar 1, Godavari Vihar Society, Ramwadi, Panchawati, Nasik-422003. Pan: Aclpk3569R. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Nashik. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Pramod Shingte [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 23/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/07/2024 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Assessee Is In Appeal Against The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfas/S/250/2023- 24/1057868559(1) Dt. 10/11/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Nfac’ Hereinafter] Passed Which In Turn Confirmed The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Nashik [‘Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2017-18 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter];

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Shingte [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

with the human tendency, therefore held same as unexplained and brought to tax in the hands of assessee. When the matter travelled up in first appeal, the Ld. NFAC further analysed facts and noted the eclectic gap in cash balances ₹33,80,862/- held as on 31/03/2016 ... Vinayak Janrao Kolasakar Vs ITO ITA No. 051/PUN/2024 AY 2017-18 7. We further note that, at the stage of assessment as well first appeal there was much less comparative verification of cash book, sales effected, purchases made and balances of sundry debtors & creditors and other items from the audited