“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

Anish M. Kacharia (L/H of Late Shri Mukesh L Kacharia), Mumbai vs. I.T.O.-22(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 174/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Pasale, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 69C

appeal before us. 5. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. No doubt the Assessee has preferred first appeal against the assessment order dated 07.03.2016 in physical form before the Ld. Commissioner within time i.e. on 12.04.2016 and thereafter without using due diligence continued

Sher Singh, Palampur vs. Income Tax Officer, Palampur

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

ITA 664/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 272A(1)(d)

Rs.44,70,0007- Total Income: Rs.57,86,650/- 9. The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Ld. AO dated 29/03/2022 prefers an first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who by an order dt. 19/09/2023 has sustained the finding of the Ld. AO supra. 10. Be it noted

Amish Umesh Jani, Thane, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2)(5), Ahmedabad, Gujarat

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

ITA 864/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Malay Kalavadia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M. Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271

assessment order 16th October, 2017 passed by the AO u/s 144 read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act. 3. Aggrieved , the assessee filed first appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee in statement of facts as well as grounds of appeal filed before ld. CIT(A) , stated

Shri Kadu Satwaji Gaikwad, Aurangabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Aurangabad

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

ITA 846/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.846/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Kadu Satwaji Gaikwad, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Ns 1/14, 11Th Scheme, Near Aurangabad. Foster B. Ed College, Shivaji Nagar, Aurangabad- 431001. Pan : Ailpg9644D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.02.2024 Passed By Ld Addl./Jcit(A), Agra For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Appeal Addl/Jict(A)Agra Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs 10,40,000/— Without Considering The Material On Record Available In The First Appeal Proceeding. The Appeal Has Been Wrongly Dismissed, Which Is Not Justifiable & Is Liable To Be Set Aside By The Kind Of Interference Of This Hon’Ble Appellate Authority.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Appeal ADDL/JICT(A)AGRA erred in confirming the addition of Rs 10,40,000/— without considering the material on record available in the first appeal proceeding. The appeal has been wrongly dismissed, which is not justifiable, and is liable to be set aside by the kind of interference of this

Unitech Fabricators & Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, the captioned appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 73/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.72&73/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Unitech Fabricators & Engineers Pvt. Ltd................…...……………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan:Aaacu5211A] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata…….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 24 , 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are The Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 04.01.2024 & 05.01.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Has Been Preferred Assailing The Confirmation Of Quantum Additions Made By The Assessing Officer, Whereas, Ita No.73/Kol/2024 Is Against The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, Which Is Consequential To The Quantum Additions Contested By The Assessee In Appeal No.72/Ko/2024. We First Take Quantum Appeal In Ita No.72/Kol/2024. I.T.A. No.72&73/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Unitech Fabricators & Engineers Pvt. Ltd

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

Unitech Fabricators & Engineers Pvt. Ltd ITA No.72/Kol/2024 – At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the 2. assessee has brought to our attention that the first appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) being barred by limitation. The ld. Counsel for the assessee in this respect

Unitech Fabricators & Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, the captioned appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 72/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

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

Prakash Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Alwar

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

ITA 184/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 144Section 147Section 148

ITBA Portal. Thereupon, the assessee obtained the copy of assessment order, copy of reasons recorded for re-opening the case, demand notice etc. Thereafter, first appeal was filed before the Learned CIT(A) on 14/4/2021. The delay in filing of appeal before the Learned CIT(A) was attributable ... delay in filing the SLP was condoned and the question before the Supreme Court was whether the District Judge was justified in dismissing the first appeal on the ground of delay. HELD allowing the appeal: (a) While considering an application for condonation of delay no strait-jacket formula is prescribed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), New Delhi, C.R. Building vs. Apollo Finance Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3258/DEL/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2008-09]

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

corporative and has not discharge the onus of proving the average value of investment that yielded exempt income (para 10 of the order). In first appeal, the CIT(A) has held that disallowance will not exceed Rs.3,01,090/-, for the ITAT had directed to consider only the average value

JCIT(OSD), C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. The Sikh Educational Society, Patiala

ITA 874/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against Assessment Order Dt. 30/03/2013 Which Was Passed By Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala Range, Patiala, Punjab Which Order Is Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao’S Order”.

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

passed under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is hereinafter referred to as the “ impugned order”. The assessee was in first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against assessment order dt. 30/03/2013 which was passed by Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala Range, Patiala, Punjab which

The Sikh Educational Society, Patiala vs. Addl. CIT, Range, Patiala

ITA 687/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

Khengarsinh Jadavbhai Gohel, Petlad vs. ITO Petlad, Petlad

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

ITA 579/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad21 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253(3)Section 69A

hands of the assessee by the AO as the same was not offered to tax by the assessee. 3. The Assessee being aggrieved filed first appeal with ld. Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals ( transferred to and Adjudicated by ld Addl/JCIT(A)) . The ld.Addl/JIT(A) issued notices to the assessee

Sushil Balasaheb Gondhale, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 14(2), Pune

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

ITA 454/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.454/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sushil Balasaheb Gondhale, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(2), Pune. 49/3, Triveni Nagar Housing Society, Opp. Vaibhav Theatre, Hadapsar, Pune- 411028. Pan : Asppg5370A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.12.2023 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 & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Lower Authorities Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order & Erred In Deciding The Issue Only On The Basis Of Material Available With Them, This Action Is Being Violative Of Principal Of Natural Justice. Your Appellant Prays For Granting Opportunity Of Hearing Before Lower Authorities.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act & Rs.23,66,803/- was business income. 4. Since the assessee remained absent in first appeal hearing, vide impugned order dated 29-12-2023 LD CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the asseseee & consequently confirmed the additions made

Mayur Deepakbhai Chavda, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1500/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Manoj Mundra

Section 143(3)Section 147

Commissioner of Income (Appeals) – 49, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’]. 49, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’]. The f The first appeal for assessment year 2013 for assessment year 2013-14, is arising from the order of the Ld. is arising from the order

Mayur Deepakbhai Chavda, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 24(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1499/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Manoj Mundra

Section 143(3)Section 147

Mayur Deepakbhai Chavda, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1498/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Manoj Mundra

Section 143(3)Section 147

M/S Daulat Sahakari Patpethi Maryadit, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-30, Mumbai

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

ITA 4282/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Jigna Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271ASection 69A

partial submissions made by the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings which the Assessing Officer has taken note of. However, at the first appeal stage there is no com- pliance by the assessee. Since the assessee is a registered cooperative society providing credit facilities to its members

Gautam Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 12, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3909/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Sumit Bhatnagar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 2Section 234ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

19/01/2009. In this regard, assessee filed his reply on 19/05/2009 in which he requested to keep the penalty proceedings in abeyance till disposal of first appeal filed by assessee before the CIT(A). Submission of the assessee was considered and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were kept in abeyance ... till disposal of first appeal.” 5. Para 5 of the penalty order reads as under: “5. By reason of the aforesaid, there is sufficient reason to come to the conclusion that the assessee is guilty of deliberate concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income amounting

Gautam Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 12, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3908/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Sumit Bhatnagar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 2Section 234ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

Raka Singh, Lucknow vs. ITO Ward 1(3) Lucknow, Lucknow

ITA 361/LKW/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.361/Lkw/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Raka Singh. D-11, 12, Industrial Estate, Nr Gazipur, Tirahamau, Mau. Pan: Bbqps5727J . . . . . . . अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Lucknow . . . . . . . ""थ" / Respondent "ारा / Appearances Assessee By : None [Adjournment Rejected] Revenue By : Mr Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 20/06/2024 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; Against The Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1057011178(1) Dt. 12/10/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac/Cit(A)’] The Assessee Filed The Present Appeal U/S 253(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act [‘The Act’]. 2. The Case Was Called Thrice, None Appeared At The Bequest Of The Assessee. After Primary Briefing From The Revenue, We Deem It Fit To Reject The Adjournment Request & Proceed To Adjudicate The Matter Ex- Parte U/R 24 Of Itat Rules, 1963. 3. Tersely Stated Facts Borne Out Of The Case Records Are That;

For Appellant: None [Adjournment Rejected]For Respondent: Mr Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250Section 253(1)(a)Section 44A

Road Transport Corp. [‘UPSRTC’], the appellant landed in financial crises. Depression & aggravated poor health constrained the assessee to relocate for those reasons first appeal could not be instituted in time before Ld. NFAC. This fact was examined and accepted while condoning the delay by the Ld. NFAC. The same reasoning ... former reasons are solitarily sufficient to hold that the appellant was for reasonable cause prevented from attending notices and representing her case in first appeal, thereof necessitating us to accord one more opportunity to represent the case before Ld. NFAC. In view thereof we set-aside the impugned order

Bharatkumar Bhikhabhai Chavda, Hariyala Kheda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Nadiad

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

ITA 797/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad20 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad In Ita No. 797/Ahd/2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/ 2023-24/1059995984(1) Dated 22-01-2024 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals),National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi , Which Appeal In Turn Has Arisen From The Assessment Order Dated 07-11-2019 Passed By The 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 253(3)Section 69A

during the year under consideration , by invoking provisions of Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the 1971 Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal before the learned CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) issued as many as four notices as are recorded in page