“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

Techman Buildwell (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed with the consequences following as per the

ITA 1618/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Gs Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Arta Trana Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 68

commission to Rajesh Chandra, it was observed that this ground has not been pressed by the assessee at the time of hearing in the first appeal. 11. Now, with regard to the first ground of appeal in AY 2012-13, it comes up that there are two additions

Income Tax Officer Ward 7(2)(1), Third Floor C Wing, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan Ambawadi Ahmedabad vs. Bharatkumar Dashrathbhai Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 202/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri J.L. Bhatia, Sr.D.R

Section 68

reason that assessee was unable to produce any evidence in respect of this loan from 16 creditors. In the course of the first appeal, the assessee had filed additional evidences in respect of unsecured loan taken from those 16 parties which was forwarded

Sjlt Textiles Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp Cricle 6(2), Nungambakkam Chennai

In the result the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 671/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.671/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 Sjlt Textiles Private Limited Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 2E Second Floor, Prince Arcade Corp Circle-6(2), Chennai. Cathedral Road, Chennai-86 [Pan: Aaics2028M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms.Sandyaarthi, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

For Appellant: Ms.Sandyaarthi, CAFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

that the appellant was not called for to submit any further information relating to the cash deposit during the course of assessment and the first appeal proceedings which is not in accordance with the standard operating procedure (SOP) issued by the Central Board of Direct Tax (CBDT) which

Ganesan Radhakrishnan, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 2(3), Cbe, Coimbatore

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

ITA 422/CHNY/2024[2017 - 2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.422/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ganesan Radhakrishnan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.30-B, Sivaji Colony, Non Corporate Ward 2(3) Edayarpalayam Post, Coimbatore. Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore 641 025. [Pan: Aempr 5076H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R.Mukundan, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. R.Mukundan, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 68

dated 27.12.2019 before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the assessee filed submission dated 07.04.2023 however, failed to appear before the first appeal authority pursuant to notice dated 12.12.2023 which caused Ld.CIT(A) to proceed exparte on merits. Accordingly, the assessment was confirmed on merits against which assessee is in further

Iilm Education Trust, Gurgaon vs. DCIT (Exemptions Circle 2), Chandigarh

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

ITA 227/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12A

erred in not appreciating that the appellant was interested in contesting the appeal as evident from the fact that the first appeal was duly filed in time, and the appellant is a charitable organization which cannot afford to bear the burden of such adverse and futile assessment/ demand. Re: Denial

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

ITA 109/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt Astha Chandra & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr NK Rander [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Sourabh Nayak [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 154Section 250Section 80Section 80I

assessing officer denied the claim for violating one of the conditions viz; non-completion of project within the stipulated period of five years. In first appeal, the assessee successfully contested the denial of deduction of 80IB(10) claim, however when the matter travelled in second appeal, the co-ordinate bench

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

ITA 108/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt Astha Chandra & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr NK Rander [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Sourabh Nayak [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 154Section 250Section 80Section 80I

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune.

ITA 107/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt Astha Chandra & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr NK Rander [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Sourabh Nayak [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 154Section 250Section 80Section 80I

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Pune

ITA 103/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt Astha Chandra & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr NK Rander [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Sourabh Nayak [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 154Section 250Section 80Section 80I

M/S H.P.State Forest Coprn. Ltd., Shimla vs. JCIT, S.R., Shimla

In the result, the present appeal of Appellant/Assessee is allowed and impugned order of Ld

ITA 281/CHANDI/2000[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jun 2024AY 1991-92

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav& Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.280& 281/Chd/2000 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 1990-91& 1991-92 M/S H.P. State Forest Corp. Ltd. Vs The Jcit, Van Nigam Kasumpti Shimla Shimla "ायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaach4036L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By: Shri Y.K. Sud, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sh.Sarabjeet Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2024 उदघोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2024 Hybridhearing आदेश/Order Per Paresh M. Joshi, Jm: Both The Above Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee. Since The Issues Involved In Both The Above Appeals Are Common & Were Heard Together Therefore They Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity. We Shall Take Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No. 280/Chd/2000 As A Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri Y.K. Sud, CAFor Respondent: Sh.Sarabjeet Singh, CIT-DR

Section 139(9)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 148(1)Section 151(2)Section 250Section 253

appeal before the Fi rst Appellate Authority under the Ac t in term of Secti on 250. The sai d first appeal order of Ld. CIT( A) which is dated 22/03/2000 has h el d as under

M/S H.P.State Forest Coprn. Ltd., Shimla vs. JCIT, S.R., Shimla

In the result, the present appeal of Appellant/Assessee is allowed and impugned order of Ld

ITA 280/CHANDI/2000[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jun 2024AY 1990-91

For Appellant: Shri Y.K. Sud, CAFor Respondent: Sh.Sarabjeet Singh, CIT-DR

Section 139(9)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 148(1)Section 151(2)Section 250Section 253

appeal before the Fi rst Appellate Authority under the Ac t in term of Secti on 250. The sai d first appeal order of Ld. CIT( A) which is dated 22/03/2000 has h el d as under

Rupmata Zilla Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., Osmanabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Latur (Neac), Latur

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

ITA 257/PUN/2024[AY.2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.257/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rupmata Zilla Nagari Sahakari Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Latur. Pathsanstha Ltd., Samarth Nagar, Osmanabad, Osmanabad- 413501. Pan : Aaaar9677H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pratik Sandbhor Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 27.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 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) Ought To Have Granted Sufficient Opportunity To The Appellant Before Passing An Exparte Order 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Appellant May Be Granted An Opportunity To File Its Submission Before The Cit(A) 3. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Assessing Officer Erred In Assessing The Total Income At Rs. 4,69,37,065/-

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

passed the assessment order determining total income at Rs.4,69,37,065/-. 4. Being aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred first appeal before LD CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the assessee remained absent, LD CIT(A)/NFAC vide order dated 14-12-2023, dismissed the appeal of the assessee

Rupmata Zilla Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha Ltd., Osmanabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Latur

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

ITA 256/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.256/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rupmata Zilla Nagari Sahakari Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Latur. Pathsanstha Ltd., Samarth Nagar, Osmanabad, Osmanabad- 413501. Pan : Aajfr0354D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pratik Sandbhor Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 27.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. C1T(A) Erred In Not Condoning The Delay In Filing Of Appeal In As Much As The Appellant Received The Impugned Order Dated 29/03/2022 Only On 23/08/2022. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Assessing Officer Erred In Assessing The Total Income At Rs.3,79,38,930/-

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

above ex-parte assessment order, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since there was delay of 139 days in filing first appeal, ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, vide order dated 18.12.2023, dismissed the appeal of the assessee, without condoning the said delay. 5. Aggrieved with the above ... received by the assessee, the Chartered Accountant of the bank was informed to take appropriate action. The Chartered Accountant advised to file first appeal against the ex-parte assessment order on the basis of which penalty u/s 27(1)(c) was initiated. Therefore, the first appeal was filed

Laly Chirakandathil George, Kochi vs. The ACIT, Kochi

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

ITA 73/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Laly Chirakandathil George The Acit Corp. Circle 1(2) Kattarukudiyil, Rmv Road, Kochi Vs. Elamakara, Kochi-26

For Appellant: Shri Mathew JosephFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 74(1)(a)

above factual matrix of the case, we notice that the assessee has filed the first appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with a delay of more than five years for which the assessee has reasoned that she was on a bona fide belief that the mistake committed by ld. A.O/CPC ... refusing for such condonation nor has she substantiated the delay of more than five years in filing the first appeal with ‘sufficient cause’. Intimation u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act is itself a notice of demand and further there was nothing to suggest that the said intimation dated

Gumption Labs Finserve Private Limited, Kota vs. ITO Ward -2(2), Kota

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

ITA 417/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT

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

vouchers/ evidence in support of the expenses, the AO disallowed 25% of the total expenses which is to the extent of Rs.18,259/-. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO. 6.2 After hearing both the parties and perusing the orders of the lower

Gobind Chhangomal Sajnani, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 185/JPR/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

For Respondent: Sh. Vedant Agrawal (CA)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax, Appeal, Delhi-42 vide order dated 03/03/2022 [here in after Id. CIT(A) ] dismissed both the appeals filed by the assessee. The first appeal filed relates to the assessment order passed u/s. 144/147 of the Act by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jaipur dated

Gobind Chhangomal Sajnani, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 184/JPR/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vedant Agrawal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax, Appeal, Delhi-42 vide order dated 03/03/2022 [here in after ld. CIT(A) ] dismissed both the appeals filed by the assessee. The first appeal filed relates to the assessment order passed u/s. 144/147 of the Act by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jaipur dated Gobind Chhangomal

Ram Vasdev Bathija, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 452/MUM/2024[A Y 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2024

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

For Appellant: Shri.Ashwin Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 270Section 68

assessee was dismissed ex-parte. 5. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee specifically referred to ground no. 2 raised before us, whereby the first appeal has been dismissed ex-parte without considering the grounds, statement of facts and material on record. He referred to para 2 of the order

Gundecha Charities, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), Delhi

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 191/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya,CAFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishore Dhule – CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250

passed U/s 143(3) of the Act. Theappeal of the assessee is infructuous on the point of challenging of impugned assessment order. In the first appeal the assessee challengedorder U/s 143(3) of the Act which has no relevance to the grounds of appeal. We are not interfering with

Sh. Varun Gupta, Chandigarh vs. ITO, W-3(3), Chandigarh

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

ITA 616/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav& Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.616/Chd/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Sh. Varun Gupta Vs Income Tax Officer S/O Shri Ram Gupta Ward-3(3) H.No.1919, Sector-22B Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No:Bobpg4626J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By: Shrisachin Jain, Adv. राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sh. Dharamvir, Jcit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2024 उदघोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2024 Physicalhearing आदेश/Order Per Paresh M. Joshi, Jm:

For Appellant: ShriSachin Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. DharamVir, JCIT-DR

Section 147Section 250Section 253Section 271F

Appeal is filed before the Tribunal in terms of Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The order of Ld. CIT(A) in first appeal is hereinafter referred to as the impugned order. Assessee thus is in second appeal before us. A.Y. 2016-17 2 Limited Factual Matrix ... case and our observations supra would in no way affect his powers u/s 250 of the Act while hearing and deciding the first appeal. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed as and by way of remand / denovo. 14. In the result, appeal of Appellant/Assessee