“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

Monica Nirav Shah, Rushabh Apartment vs. Income Tax Officer 2(5), Ashar It Park

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

ITA 977/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Steve Pulikkoden, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 69A

objecting on the plea of the Ld. Counsel fairly submitted that since nothing has been furnished at the stage of assessment as well as first appeal, the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer which would avoid multiplicity of proceedings before

New Shangrilla Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, Colaba S.O, Mumbai vs. CPC ITO 25(3)(1), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 756/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI. RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80ISection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

756/Mum/2024 and ITA No. 755/Mum/2024 New Shangrilla Co-operative Housing Society Limited been filed. Accordingly we condone the delat in filing of first appeal. 3. On merits, after hearing both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order and the material placed on record we find that

New Shangrilla Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, Colaba S.O, Mumbai vs. CPC ITO 25(3)(1), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 755/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI. RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80ISection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Apac Financial Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1733/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Dhairya Ravasa, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250

disallowance and preliminary expenses disallowance. 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said additions as well as assessment order dated 27.03.2021 by filing the first appeal on 30.04.2022 before the Ld. Commissioner, who somehow by observing that there is a delay of 369 days in filing the appeal ... Apex Court in the aforesaid case. Hence, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, as there was meager delay of 30 days in filing the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner and therefore, we are inclined to condone the delay occurred in filing of the appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. Hence

Awaita Properties Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-NFAC, Delhi

ITA 1422/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

Rs.54,13,53,992/- (investment) u/s 14A of the Act. 3. The Assessee challenged the aforesaid additions before the Ld. Commissioner by filing first appeal on 06.12.2017 which was taken into consideration only after three years i.e. on 03.03.2020 and thereafter on 06.01.2021 and on 15.01.2021 admittedly the Covid

Anil Assudomal Manghnani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1328/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Advocate/Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The assessee challenged the said addition of Rs.6,34,400/- before the Ld. Commissioner by filing first appeal. However, as per the assessee, in order to be in peace, he withdrew the appeal filed against the assessment order. 4. Thereafter

Mr. Melvin Marques, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward 3(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4741/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt,A.RFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 250

Revenue Department and therefore thereafter only collected the assessment order personally from the Department on 29.06.2022 and subsequently on dated 15.07.2022 filed the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. 4. We have considered the claim of the assessee, however, realized that reason given by the assessee before the Ld. Commissioner ... cause for the Assessee to file the appeal delayed, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee due to delay of 1269 days in filing the first appeal and therefore the Assessee do not deserve any leniency, however, considering the fact specifically to the effect that the assessee was not in India

Anj Turnkey Projects Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Nfau/DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1)

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

ITA 4442/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Margav Shukla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Barate, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

144B of the Act has made the addition of Rs.29,02,044/- under the head “Business Income” as unexplained. The assessee, being aggrieved, preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner who though afforded four opportunities to the assessee, however, the assessee neither made any compliance nor filed any adjournment application

Paragkumar Dipakkumar Khamar, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Mehsana

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

ITA 232/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr. D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144

explain the aforesaid investment, the AO added the amount of Rs. 13,13,329/- as unexplained investment. 3. The assessee being aggrieved filed first appeal with CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) issued notices to the assessee but there was no compliance on the part of the assessee

Randheja Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandli Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-3 Now Ward-1, Gandhinagar

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 649/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt. Year : 2017-18 Randheja Dudh Utpadak The Ito, Ward-3 Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Vs Now Ward-1 To-Randheja Gandhinagar. Tal: Gandhinagar Pin : 382 620 Pan : Aacar 5164 K (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short Referred To As Ld.Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 22.11.2021 Pertaining To Asst.Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Notified That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By Limitation By 581 Days. In Order To Explain The Reasons For The Impugned Delay, The Ld.Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Cit(A)/Nfac Order Was Passed Against The Assessee On 22.11.2021. However, Due To Covid-19 Pandemic Limitation For Filing Appeal Before The Court Of Law Was Extended Till February, 2022. Therefore, After Expiry Of The Limitation For Filing Of The Appeal On Feb., 2022, The Assessee Was Required To File Appeal Within 60 Days Of The Same I.E. By April, 2022. But The Assessee Could File The Appeal On

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.DR

Section 250

issued on the premise of escaped assessment referable to section 148 of the IT Act. This position notwithstanding, when an assessment is subjected to first appeal or further appeals under the IT Act or all questions germane for concluding the assessment would be relevant and claims which may result

Sanjay Prabhakar Deopurkar, Kothrud vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3), Pune

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

ITA 521/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharad S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

determining income of Rs.2,60,42,822/- as unexplained income u/s 69 of the IT Act. 6. Since the assessee remained absent in first appeal, ld. CIT(A)/NFAC vide order dated 17.01.2024 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Being aggrieved with the ex-parte decision

Sanjay Prabhakar Deopurkar, Kothrud vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3), Pune

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

ITA 520/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharad S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

Sanjay Prabhakar Deopurkar, Kothrud vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3), Pune

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

ITA 519/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharad S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

Sanjay Prabhakar Deopurkar, Kothrud vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3), Pune

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

ITA 518/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharad S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Shakuntlam Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

ITA 697/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik, CIT &

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)

levied penalty of Rs. 66,97,445/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Against the levy of penalty in the first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision of P & H high Court in case of CIT v. Modi Industrial Corporation (2010) 195 taxmann.com

M/S. Sjs Enterprises Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 972/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sri Rony Anthony, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234B

impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay filed in the High Court would stand rejected and the miscellaneous first appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by time. No costs.” Once the concerned authority applies its mind and declines to condone the delay in filing

Shree Kumbhajai Co-Op Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 183/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Dasija, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Pasale, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

said addition. 3. The assessee, being aggrieved with the intimation dated 25.11.2021 read with order dated 04.12.2021 under section 154 of the Act, preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner who by impugned order affirmed the aforesaid addition. 4. The assessee, being aggrieved, is in appeal before us. 5. Heard

JCIT, (OSD)(E), Circle-2(1), New Delhi vs. National Internet Exchange of India, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 188/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2020-21 Jcit (Osd) (E), Vs National Internet Exchange Of India, 6C, 6D & 6E, 6Th Floor, Circle-2(1), New Delhi. Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan: Aabcn9308A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Pratap Mall, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Pratap Mall, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

existing for charitable purposes as envisaged under the Proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. The CIT(A) observed that consistently in the first appeal the assessee was given relief upto AY 2018-19, however, the Department carried the matter in further appeal before the Tribunal and was unsuccessful

Gopalkrishna Naginbhai Patel, Petlad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Petlad

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

ITA 545/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Against The Appellate Order Dated 8Th May, 2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax(Appeals),National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi( Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1052644110(1))

For Appellant: Shri B.T. Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

assessee for the year under consideration , and addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- was made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A) who claimed to have issued seven notices of hearing to the assessee but there was no compliance on the part

Deepak Mahadev Mane, Murgud vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Kolhapur, Kolhapur

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

ITA 993/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

which includes Rs.1,20,54,750/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act. 5. Since the assessee remained absent in first appeal, ld. CIT(A)/NFAC vide order dated 29.03.2023 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Being aggrieved with the ex-parte decision