← 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

Prakash Shripal Chavan, Sangli vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sangli

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

ITA 580/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.580/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Prakash Shripal Chavan, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Sangli. 1 Stand Road, Samdoli Sangli, Sangli- 416416. Pan : Ajlpc0555E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastava Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.02.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing Appeal By Not Condoning The Delay When There Was Sufficient Cause For The Delay. 2. The Appellant Prays That The Delay May Kindly Be Condoned & The Appeal May Kindly Be Decided On Merits.” 3. The Facts, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & No Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139 Of The It Act

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

assessment order dated 31.03.2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the IT Act. 4. Being aggrieved with the above action of the Assessing Officer, first appeal was filed belatedly before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC after referring the various decisions dismissed the appeal ... assessee on account of delay in filing of the first appeal. 5. Being aggrieved with the decision of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before us. 3 6. LD AR submitted before us that LD CIT(A)/NFAC did not follow the principles of natural justice

Anil Firojiya, Bhakt Nagar, Ujjain vs. Dy Commisioner of Income Tax, Ujjain

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 416/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Anil Firojiya, Dy. Commissioner Of 6, Bhakt Nagar, Income-Tax, बनाम/ Dashera Maidan, Assessment Unit, Vs. Ujjain New Delhi (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaipf7302A Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.07.2024

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

addition of Rs. 16,59,500/- on account of unexplained investment in purchase of properties. Aggrieved by such order, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A) but did not get any relief. Still aggrieved, the assessee has come before us in next appeal. 4. At first ... concluded that the assessee has not furnished any explanation on the sources of cash paid for purchase of properties and accordingly made addition. During first appeal, the CIT(A) has merely repeated the observations made by AO and cited section 69 to uphold AO’s action. However, the position

Anil Firojiya, Bhakt Nagar Ujjain vs. Dy Commisioner of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhawan

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 413/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Anil Firojiya, Dy. Commissioner Of 6, Bhakt Nagar, Income-Tax, बनाम/ Dashera Maidan, Assessment Unit, Vs. Ujjain New Delhi (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaipf7302A Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.07.2024

Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

addition of Rs. 10,29,672/- on account of unexplained investment in construction of property. Aggrieved by such order, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A) but did not get any relief. Still aggrieved, the assessee has come before us in next appeal. 4. At first ... concluded that the assessee has not furnished evidences to justify the sources of payments towards construction of house property and accordingly made addition. During first appeal, the CIT(A) has merely repeated the observations made by AO and cited section 69 to uphold the AO’s action. However, the position

Shaileshbhai Bha vs. Angbhai Chavda, Bhavnagarvs.the Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4) Bhavnagar, Bhavnagar

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

ITA 248/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. D.R
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

whole transactions to be sham. The cost of acquisition was not allowed by the AO to the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal before ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) issued as many as five notices of hearing to the assessee, but there was no compliance

Praful Devji Galia, Mumbai vs. Rajnish K Sinha, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4278/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2014-2015

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

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 69

that learned CIT(A) shall ensure substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice and pass order on merit afresh after admission of the first appeal in accordance with law. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.10.2023 is set aside. The appeal is restored

Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Kurukshetra vs. ITO, Ward-3, Kurukshetra

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

ITA 712/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Him. This Appeal Is Second Appeal Under The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Terms Of Section 253 Of The Act. The Aforesaid Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”.

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate for Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253

being no evidence regarding the cost of acquisition. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO (supra) dt. 09/12/2019 the assessee preferred first appeal under the Income Tax Act, 1961 before the Ld. CIT(A) who by impugned order has sustained the order of Ld. AO dt. 09/12/2019

Tehran Jonoob Technical and Construction Company Pjs, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT - Circle (Int. Taxn) 1, Ahm, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by Assessee is allowed

ITA 433/AHD/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jul 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.433/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2021-22 Tehran Jonoob Technical & The Acit बनाम/ Construction Company Pjs Circle (Intl. Taxation) – 1, B-705, Mondeal Heights Ahmedabad V/S. Nr.Wide Angle S.G. Highway Ahmedabad – 380 015 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aadct 3091 L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Dholariya, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Dholariya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)

Ahmedabad-13 erred on facts and in law by disallowing expenses of Rs.56,00,000/- on account of selling expenses during the course of first appeal proceedings in the case of Tehran Jonoob Technical and Construction Company PJS (hereinafter referred to as “Appellant”) in its appellate order dated 11th January

Sandhya Suresh Dahivelkar, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 14(3), Pune

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

ITA 341/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.341/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sandhya Suresh Dahivelkar, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(3), Pune. Flat No.6/624, Clover Citadel Wanowrie, Pune- 411040. Pan : Asypd2124N Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Dattatraya Suresh Kusumkar : Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.02.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Present Appeal Is Filed Belatedly I.E. With The Delay Of 297 Days. The Appellant Furnished An Application/ Affidavit Praying For Condonation Of Delay In The Circumstances Mentioned Therein. We Are Of The Considered Opinion That The Reasons Mentioned By The Assessee Constitute Reasonable Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within

For Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 54Section 55A

Rs.43,57,789/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act by determining the income at Rs.58,82,355/-. 5. In first appeal, being unsatisfied with the contentions of the assessee, & also in the absence of accurate evidence Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal

Uday Jawahar Kotnis, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

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

ITA 1/PUN/2024[2017 - 2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda

Section 143(3)Section 156Section 2(27)Section 234ASection 270A(9)(a)Section 274

also issued DN u/s 156 accordingly, issued notice u/s 274 rws 270A of the Act for misreporting of income.” 5. In first appeal against the above assessment order, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under :- ITA No.01/PUN/2024 “6.1 I have gone through

Dr. Vikas Jagannath Pol, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 11(2), Pune

In the result the appellant gets relief of Rs

ITA 831/PUN/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jul 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.831/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dr. Vikas Jagannath Pol, Vs. Ito, Ward-11(2), Pune. A/1/4 Rangriha Chs Salunkhe Vihar Road, Kondhwa-411048. Pan : Agipp7216P Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Kishor B. Phadke : Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.09.20222 Passed By Ld Cit(A)-11, Pune [“Ld. Cit(A)”] For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts Upholding Addition Of Unsecured Loan Of Rs.52,00,000. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals] Has Erred In Law & Facts By Allowing Rectification Of Order Under Section 143(3) Under Section 154 & Upholding Addition Of Unsecured Loan Of Rs.52,00,000 Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Appellant Craves His Right To Add, Alter, Amend Or Delete Any Or All Grounds Of Appeal.”

For Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271DSection 68

order of the Tribunal (supra) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 21.09.2022. 4. Being aggrieved with the above first appeal order dated 21.09.2022, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in second round of appeal. 5. LD AR submitted before us that

Sh. Bodhu Ram Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 601/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 144

making addition of Rs.13,68,265/- and treating the source of investment in agricultural land as income from undisclosed sources. In first appeal, the ld. Addl CIT(A) as mentioned at para 3 of his order provided 4th opportunities to the assessee but the assessee did not furnish any document

Sh. Brij Mohan Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 600/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 144

making addition of Rs.13,68,265/- and treating the source of investment in agricultural land as income from undisclosed sources. In first appeal, the ld.Addl. CIT(A) as mentioned at para 4.1 of his order provided 5th opportunities to the assessee but the assessee did not furnish any document. Hence

Mr. Ravindra Karadahalli Vivek, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 870/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Abhishek Murthy R., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 142Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(b)

been held that in terms of section 249(4)(a) of the Act, stipulation as to payment of tax ante filing of first appeal is only directory and not mandatory, where appeal is filed without payment of tax but subsequently required amount of tax is paid, appeal shall be admitted ... Ravindra Karadahalli Vivek, Bangalore Page 4 of 5 249(4)(a) of the Act, stipulation as to payment of tax ante filing of first appeal is only directory and not mandatory, where appeal is filed without payment of tax but subsequently required amount of tax is paid, appeal shall

Mr. Ravindra Karadahalli Vivek, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 635/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Abhishek Murthy R., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 142Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(b)

been held that in terms of section 249(4)(a) of the Act, stipulation as to payment of tax ante filing of first appeal is only directory and not mandatory, where appeal is filed without payment of tax but subsequently required amount of tax is paid, appeal shall be admitted ... Ravindra Karadahalli Vivek, Bangalore Page 4 of 5 249(4)(a) of the Act, stipulation as to payment of tax ante filing of first appeal is only directory and not mandatory, where appeal is filed without payment of tax but subsequently required amount of tax is paid, appeal shall

Mr. Ravindra Karadahalli Vivek, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1129/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Abhishek Murthy R., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 142Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(b)

been held that in terms of section 249(4)(a) of the Act, stipulation as to payment of tax ante filing of first appeal is only directory and not mandatory, where appeal is filed without payment of tax but subsequently required amount of tax is paid, appeal shall be admitted ... Ravindra Karadahalli Vivek, Bangalore Page 4 of 5 249(4)(a) of the Act, stipulation as to payment of tax ante filing of first appeal is only directory and not mandatory, where appeal is filed without payment of tax but subsequently required amount of tax is paid, appeal shall

Mr. Ravindra Karadahalli Vivek, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1128/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Abhishek Murthy R., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 142Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(b)

been held that in terms of section 249(4)(a) of the Act, stipulation as to payment of tax ante filing of first appeal is only directory and not mandatory, where appeal is filed without payment of tax but subsequently required amount of tax is paid, appeal shall be admitted ... Ravindra Karadahalli Vivek, Bangalore Page 4 of 5 249(4)(a) of the Act, stipulation as to payment of tax ante filing of first appeal is only directory and not mandatory, where appeal is filed without payment of tax but subsequently required amount of tax is paid, appeal shall

Shri Robert Paul Raj, Mumbai vs. ITO 42(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 509/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Harshal Ajmera, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 274Section 56(2)(vii)

instant appeal on which the Assessee by filing his affidavit has claimed that his manager had given his personal email ID while filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, somehow the manager left the job abruptly and therefore the assessee did not receive any e-mails as well ... form No.36 which goes to show that the contention to the effect that his manager had given his personal email ID while filing first appeal as mentioned in the affidavit filed by the Assessee, appears to be incorrect, un-warranted and un-justifiable. Hence, we are inclined not to entertain

Niraj Pratapbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(2)(Formerly ITO, Ward-3(3)(3)), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 87/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

assessee before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, I.T.A Nos. 85 & 87/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. 2 Niraj Pratapbhai Shah v. ITO Ahmedabad, firstly appeal in ITA No. 85/Ahd/2024 has arisen from the appellate order dated 16th October, 2023 in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057102346(1) passed by ld. Commissioner ... I.T.A Nos. 85 & 87/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. 7 Niraj Pratapbhai Shah v. ITO 4. Aggrieved , the assessee filed first appeal before the ld. CIT(A) , and the ld. CIT(A) issued as many as three notices to the assessee for compliance by assessee

Niraj Pratapbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(2), (Formerly ITO, Ward-3(3)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 85/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

assessee before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, I.T.A Nos. 85 & 87/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. 2 Niraj Pratapbhai Shah v. ITO Ahmedabad, firstly appeal in ITA No. 85/Ahd/2024 has arisen from the appellate order dated 16th October, 2023 in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057102346(1) passed by ld. Commissioner ... I.T.A Nos. 85 & 87/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. 7 Niraj Pratapbhai Shah v. ITO 4. Aggrieved , the assessee filed first appeal before the ld. CIT(A) , and the ld. CIT(A) issued as many as three notices to the assessee for compliance by assessee

Rajasthan Jain Mitra Parishad, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Delhi, Jurisdictional AO: the ACIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 337/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

vide assessment order dated 24.08.2021 u/s 147 read with Section 144 of the 1961 Act. 4. Aggrieved , the assessee filed first appeal with CIT(A) raising as many as four grounds of appeal. The assessee stated in the grounds of appeal as well statement of facts that the assessee ... tune of Rs. 7,50,000/- in the hands of the assessee. I have also observed that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the first appeal of the assessee in-limine without deciding the issues on merits which is not in compliance with the provisions of section