“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

Kulut Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Burdwan vs. ACIT, Cir-1, Burdwan.

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

ITA 1049/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Shuvo Chakraborty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 250

unjust. 2 Kulut Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. AY: 2017-18. 2 For that non consideration of explanation butressed by the appellant during first appeal regarding the source of said cash deposits being supported by all documental evidence including complete books of account is illegal

Saravanan Palaniappan, Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 2(4), Chennai

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

ITA 931/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 931/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-2022 Saravanan Palaniappan, The Assistant Commissioner Of 45/21, Poes Garden, Vs. Income Tax, Teynampet, Central Circle 2(4) Chennai 600 086. Chennai. Pan: Ayepp 4761H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)[Cit(A)] Chennai-19 Dated 21.02.2024 For Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. Assessee Is An Individual & Has Filed The Return Of Income. A Search Was Conducted In The Case Of Kallal Group On 11.03.2021. During Assessment Proceedings Assessee Failed To Explain Sources For The Expenditure, Loan, Investment Etc.. Therefore, The Ao Has Passed Order Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’) Dated 27.09.2022 & Made Various Additions & Assessed The Income At Rs.81,58,86,115/- Which Includes Unexplained Expenditure, Unexplained Cash, Unexplained Loan, Unexplained Investment In Gold Jewellery & Silvers Items & Income From Other Sources.

For Appellant: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, IRS, CIT

Section 144

against the order under section 144 of the Act dated 27.09.2022 before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the assessee did not appear before the first appeal authority. Accordingly, the assessment was confirmed on merits against which assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. At the outset, Ld. Counsel

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. G. Tex Inc, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1129/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Hemanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195Section 195(1)Section 250Section 40

assessee also submitted the memo for production of documents containing 792 pages which were submitted before the National Faceless Appeal Centre during the first appeal proceedings. The Ld. DR on the other hand, vehemently submitted that no agreement between the agent and the assessee were produced either before the assessing

Mr. Yagnesh Girjashankar Mrhta, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 32(1)(7), Mumbai

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

ITA 427/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Ranjana Soni, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Pasale, D.R

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Rs.9,46,099/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said additions by filing the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner on 29.01.2020 which was taken into consideration after one year i.e. on 19.02.2021 and thereafter more than one year

Paresh Vanilal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 29(2)(5)/ Now 41(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1614/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

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

Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

prescription is the handmaid and not the mistress, lubricant, not a resistance in the administration of justice. 7. In the instant case, admittedly the first appeal was physically filed within 30 days i.e on 11.04.2016 against the assessment order dated 23.03.2016. The object of procedure prescribing the filing ... accordingly hold that the delay has wrongly been refused to be condoned by learned CIT(A) merely on technicalities despite the fact that the first appeal was 5 Paresh Vanilal Shah physically filed within the stipulated period. We, accordingly condone the said delay in e–filing the first appeal before

Reema Kundnani, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.154/M/2024filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes, whereas ITA No

ITA 154/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21 & Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair, SR. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250

instant case the assessee has challenged the assessment order dated 29.09.2021 under section 143(3) of the Act by e-filing an first appeal on 30.10.2021, which was taken into consideration only after two years i.e. on 28.08.2023 and subsequently on three occasions. However, the assessee made no compliance. Therefore

Reema Kundnani, Mumbai vs. JCIT(OSD), Central Circle-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.154/M/2024filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes, whereas ITA No

ITA 149/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21 & Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair, SR. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250

Usha Janakalyan Nagar Chs Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer-30 (1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee which are under consideration are allowed on the same terms

ITA 4763/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Kunal Dilip Lunawat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Pasale, D.R

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

negligent as well as lethargic in its approach to purse the legal remedies. However, after dismissal of its rectification application on 28.09.2018 preferred first appeal on 29.10.2018 which is under consideration before us. 6. The issue under consideration relates to the interest income earned from the cooperative banks which

Usha Janakalyan Nagar Chs Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer-41 (3) (4), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee which are under consideration are allowed on the same terms

ITA 4762/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Kunal Dilip Lunawat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Pasale, D.R

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

Usha Janakalyan Nagar Chs Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Centralized Processing Center, Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee which are under consideration are allowed on the same terms

ITA 4761/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Kunal Dilip Lunawat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Pasale, D.R

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

Prabhu Chhaya Chs Ltd, Andheri (West) vs. CPC ITO 24(3)(1), Piramal Chamber

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 4463/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2020-2021

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Athavale, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Pasale, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

before the CPC under section 154 of the Act, however, could not get suceeded, which resulted into challenging the order dated 13.07.2022 by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who ultimately dismissed the same by holding that the appeal filed against the order under section

Anand Dilipbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 898/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: 3

For Appellant: Shri Rameshchandra B. Patel &For Respondent: Shri M. Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

part A-Other Income of return and amount mentioned in clause 16(d) of the tax audit report. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal with the office of ld. CIT(A), Addl/JCIT(A) and raised the grievance vide grounds of appeal filed before the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) wherein

Charmi Samir Patel, Karelibaug, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Vadodara

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

ITA 68/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: None (Written Submission)For Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 68

Thus as against returned income of Rs. 12,79,110/-, the assessed income was Rs. 27,72,200/-. The Assessee being aggrieved filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A) who granted part relief to the assessee by deleting the additions of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 3 I.T.A No. 68/Ahd/2024 ... shown in the balance sheet and added to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved by assessment framed by the AO , the assessee filed first appeal with CIT(A). The assessee submitted with respect to the aforesaid addition that the assessee has taken services of Shiv Shakti Earthmovers for transportation

Jayshree Bhalchandra Gutal, Solapur vs. ITO, Ward 2(4), Solapur

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

ITA 897/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.897/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Jayshree Bhalchandra Gutal, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(4), Bhalu Kumkum, Plot Solapur. No.1228, A/P Kem, Karmala, Solapur- 413223. Pan : Ahzpg6709J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pratik Sandbhor Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.02.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Passing An Exparte Order Without Granting Sufficient Opportunity To The Appellant. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Assessing Officer Erred In Invoking The Provision Of Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Respect Of Cash Deposits Without Taking Cognizance Of The Fact That The Cash Deposits Have Been Duly Recorded In The Books Of Accounts Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 44ASection 69A

added u/s 69A of the IT Act as unexplained money deposited in bank account during demonetization period. 4. Since the assessee remained absent in first appeal, LD CIT(A)/NFAC vide order dated 29-02-2024 decided the appeal ex-parte & consequently confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer

Sanjeev Garg, Bhopal vs. ACIT, 3(1), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 127/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Sanjeev Garg, Acit-3(1), P/O M/S Sanjeev Bhopal बनाम/ Enterprises, Old Kabadkhana, Vs. Jumerati, Bhopal (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aawpg 4731 G Assessee By Shri A.K. Rinwa Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25.06.2024

Section 143(3)Section 249

assessee drew our attention to the impugned order passed by FAA to show that the FAA has dismissed assessee’s first-appeal on the footing that the same was filed on 13.06.2016 whereas the assessment- order was passed by AO u/s 143(3) on 18.02.2016 and therefore the first- appeal ... Shri Sanjeev Garg, Bhopal v. ACIT-3(1), Bhopal Assessment year 2013-14 Referring to same, Ld. AR submitted that the first appeal was filed physically on 28.03.2016 which was within the time limit of 60 days prescribed in section 249. However, the assessee refiled same appeal electronically after

J.K. Jewellers, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result the disallowance of interest sustained by the ld

ITA 100/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Was Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.11.2018

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Add. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 57

part of investment in shares. The Assessing Officer thus added Rs. 26,44,176/- to the total income of the assessee. 18. In the first appeal, the CIT(A) noted distinction between the scope of section 57(m) vis-à-vis section 37(1) of the Act and found

Niduvalesannaiah Chandru, Chikmagalur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalur

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

ITA 758/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Niduvalesannaiah Chandru, Vs. Ito, G Hosahalli Gonibeedu, Ward – 1, Mudiere – Taluk, Chikmagalur. Chikamagalur – Ist, Mudigere – 577 132. Pan : Agdpc 1378 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. A Shiva Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri. A Shiva Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 250Section 69

appellant. Page 2 of 4 The first appellate authority has erred in not issuing hearing notices by Postal Service and dismissing the first appeal. That the Appellant craves permission to add, alter, amend, and to modify, substitute, delete and to rescind all or any of the GROUNDS OF APPEAL ... proceedings portal. The first appellate authority has posted the hearing notices in E-proceedings portal only and not by posted services and dismissed the first appeal". As a matter of act, while filing the appeal, in the appeal form-35, the appellant has very clearly stated, in response

Brighton Co Op Hsg Soc Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 35/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19 Assessment Year: 2020-21 & Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Bhuta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Pasale, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

aggrieved, challenged the said disallowance/addition made and reiterated by the CPC vide order dated 07.01.2020 under section 154 of the Act by filing the first appeal only on 10.01.2023 with a delay of 1070 days. The assessee before the Ld. Commissioner failed to demonstrate the plausible reason for presenting ... first appeal with a delay, therefore the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine and without going into the merits of the case. 10. We have given thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. We observe that the CPC has passed the order

Brighton Co Op Hsg Soc Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 34/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19 Assessment Year: 2020-21 & Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Bhuta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Pasale, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

Brighton Co Op Hsg Soc Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 33/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19 Assessment Year: 2020-21 & Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Bhuta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Pasale, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)