“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

M/S.Sudchemie India P. Ltd, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 51/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

inasmuch as the assessment stands since modified in appellate proceedings, he would restrict his arguments only to the three surviving the first appeal. The first, he would, Sud-Chemie India Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT adverting to para 6.3 of the impugned order, continue, is with reference to the expenditure

Visveswaraya Resham Khadi Industrial Association, Chikkaballapura vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Chikaballapura

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

ITA 361/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Visveswaraya Resham Khadi Industrial Association, Near Eswara Temple, The Income Tax Jangamakote Town, Officer, Post: Jangamakote Ward – 4(1), Shidlaghatta (Tq), Chikaballapur. Vs. Chikkaballapura Dist., Karnataka – 562 144. Pan: Aabav2671C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Guruswamy, Itp : Shri Narendra Kumar Naik, Revenue By Addl. Cit –Dr Date Of Hearing : 29-04-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2024 Order Per Beena Pillaithe Present Appeal Arises Out Of Order Dated 02/02/2024, Passed By Nfac, Delhi For Assessment Year 2018-19 Is On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITP

Section 144Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69A

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

Yersova Primerose Co-Op Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-25(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 363/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Anil Tiwari, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Pasale, D.R

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

vide order dated 13.01.2020 rejected the rectification application filed by the assessee under section 154 of the Act, against which the assessee has preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding “that the assessee is not entitled

ACIT, Circle 20(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug Mumbai vs. Virji Devraj Gada, Matunga (W) Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4321/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhariassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar, D.R

Section 10Section 10(29)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessee, ultimately made the disallowance of Rs.6,44,914/- and added to the total income of the assessee. 4. The assessee, being aggrieved, preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order dated 05.10.2023 allowed the appeal of the assessee and consequently deleted the disallowance of Rs.6

Vpssr Facilities, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-49(4), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3711/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Cit(A) When Discussed The Same By Applying The Judgment Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cit-1, In Civil Appeal No.2833 Of 2016 & Ors.

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 37(1)

State Insurance (Employee’s contribution) amounting paid. Thus total disallowance of Rs.7,81,907/- was made. 3. Being aggrieved the appellant assessee preferred first appeal before CIT(A) when discussed the same by applying the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services

Income Tax Oficer, Bc Bazar vs. The Kesri Union Farmers Service Co-Op Society Ltd, Ambala

In the result appeal of Department / Revenue is dismissed

ITA 517/CHANDI/2023[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2024

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

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 2Section 3Section 5

24/12/2019 under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee society the respondent herein preferred an first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who by DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24 1053940711(1) dt. 26/06/2023 the impugned order herein has allowed the appeal

Aliasagar Inayathusain Bohari, Jalgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Dhule

Appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 220/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Ashish BhalgatFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 271(1)(c)

been passed ex-parte but also the corresponding quantum issue is 2 ITA.No.220/PUN./2024 further stated to be pending in first appeal before the very authority. That being the case and after giving our thoughtful consideration to the instant sole substantive issue of correctness of the impugned penalty proceedings

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 88/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 43B

VITRAN NIGAM LTD. VS DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR Accordingly, he (ld. AO) disallowed the outstanding interest amount of Rs.2,56,43,688/-. 3.2 In first appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) at Para 9.3 to 9.6 observed that loan was advanced by the state government and interest was also paid

Smt. Sethi Seema, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 931/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri. Mahesh Kumar L, A.RFor Respondent: Sri. Ganesh R. Ghale, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

instant case the impugned order dated 24.08.2023 in fact was received by the assessee on 24.08.2023 against which the time limit for filing the first appeal 2 Smt. Sethi Seema before the Hon’ble ITAT though prescribed is 60 days which falls on 22.10.2023 and though the assessee has filed

Rajesh Jugraj Madhani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 326/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Rajesh Jugraj Madhani Deputy Commissioner Of 301, Saloni Apartment, Income Tax – 4(3), 56Th Road, T.P.S. Iii, Vs. Mumbai Borivali (West), Mumbai – 400092 (Pan : Aahpm3871E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Jay Thacker, Fca Revenue : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri Jay Thacker, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57

Madhani, AY 2016-17 4. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee specifically referred to ground no.1 and 2 raised before us, whereby the first appeal has been dismissed ex-parte without considering the grounds, statement of facts and material on record. 4.1. It was thus submitted that the matter

Shri Arun Shekhar Shetty, Mumbai vs. ACIT-30 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 144/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhariassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. DR

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

being aggrieved, challenged the aforesaid addition before the Ld. Commissioner with a delay of 36 days and claimed that the assessee has also filed first appeal on 31.01.2019 and this is a subsequent appeal. Because the Assessee was not in India during such period therefore delay of 36 days ... delay in filing the appeal was in any manner attributable to his stay outside India. Even otherwise, with regard to the filing of first appeal on 31.01.2019 the assessee failed to file any documentary evidence, therefore the Ld. Commissioner did not accept the Assessee’s contention and treated the same

Latif Tujar Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(2)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee under consideration are allowed on the same terms as enumerated in the judgement of ITA No

ITA 4726/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Smt. Renu Jauhari (Am)

Section 144Section 147

income of the assessee. 3. The assessee being aggrieved with the assessment order and making the addition by the Assessing Officer preferred first appeal before learned Commissioner who though afforded various opportunities by sending notice and fixing the case for hearing, however, the assessee made no compliance. Therefore

Mr. Latif Tujar Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee under consideration are allowed on the same terms as enumerated in the judgement of ITA No

ITA 4725/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Smt. Renu Jauhari (Am)

Section 144Section 147

Richmond Realtors, Bhandup, Mumbai vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 4175/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Divyesh I. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Kumar, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 68

respectively on account of unexplained cash credit and disallowance of interest expenses under section 68 of the Act, against which the assessee preferred first appeal before the Ld. commissioner who though afforded various opportunities to the assessee by issuing notices for fixing the case for hearings, however, the assessee made

Sajjan Kedia, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 30(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3293/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhariassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Kumar, D.R

Section 147Section 250Section 68

additions of Rs.39,06,871/- and Rs.1,95,343/- respectively under section 68 & 69C of the Act were made, against which the assessee preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner who, though issued 8 notices to the assessee, however, the assessee except requesting the adjournment on two occasions, made ... does not deserve any leniency, however, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances specific to the effects that in the absence of relevant reply/documents, the first appeal filed by the assessee remained to be unadjudicated on merits and therefore, for just decision of the case and for substantial justice

Pushpendra Bansal, Andheri West vs. ACIT-CC-3(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3236/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vinit Mangal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Kumar, J. CIT

Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

therefore in the constrained circumstances and in the absence of relevant reply/submission/documents which the assessee has failed to file, the Ld. Commissioner decided the first appeal filed by the assessee by dismissing the same on non prosecution. Against the dismissal of the appeal of the assessee on non prosecution

Bajaj Travels, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 43(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed accordingly

ITA 336/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Shaantanu Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

were carried out the CPC-Bangluru and intimation was issued enhancing the assessed income in the captioned assessment years. The CIT(A) in the first appeal has sustained the adjustments towards belated deposits of employees' contribution to PF/ESIC in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme

Sukhma Sons & Associates, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range- 63, New Delhi

ITA 318/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: due date as per Haryana Labour Welfare Act.

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Part of labour welfare expenses and business promotion expenses were also disallowed by the AO. In first appeal, the appellant/assessee succeeded partly. Page 3 of 12 3. We have heard the rival parties at length. We perused the case records and orders ... interest-bearing fund for non-business purposes as interest-free loans to its sister concerns, disallowed interest of Rs.27,25,315/-. In first appeal, the appellant/assessee got relief of Rs.18,41,950/- on this score. The remaining disallowance of interest of Rs.8,73,336/- under section

Tata Toyo Radiator Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 7, Pune

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

ITA 152/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.152/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tata Toyo Radiator Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. Taco House, V.G. Damle Path, Off Law College Road, Deccan Gymkhana, Pune- 411004. Pan : Aaact5566F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri M. D. Sancheti Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Order Passed By The Learned Cit(A) Is Ultra Vires, Illegal, Bad In Law & Contrary To The Provisions Of The Act. Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Thus Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing An Ex-Parte Order Without Granting A Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard, Thereby Violating The Principles Of Natural Justice.

For Appellant: Shri M. D. SanchetiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 234C

administrative service charges paid to TACO & completed the assessment vide order dated 30-09-2021. 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 29-11-2023, dismissed the appeal

Corporaten Area Basketball Trust, Indore vs. The CIT Exemption., Bhopal

ITA 77/IND/2023[00]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 May 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 12ASection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

trust engaged in charitable activity and having registration from Income-tax Department u/s 12A vide order dated 30.09.2019 effective from AY 2019-20. The first appeal is such that the assessee sought approval u/s 80G(5)(vi) from AY 2020-21 onwards and for this purpose, filed application dated