← All Phrases

“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
87
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
59
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
55
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
40
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
32
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
30
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
28
citing judgments

An assessee can make a claim of deduction for the first time before the appellate authorities.

Judgments citing first appeal

Kasthuri, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corprate Ward-10(2), Chennai

The appeal is dismissed on merits by the Ld

ITA 625/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.625/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Kasthuri Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.5-A, Station Road, Non Corporate Ward 10(2) Villivakkam 600 049. Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Dhgpk 9969E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. S. Girish Kumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. S. Easwar, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.05.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order No.Itba/Nfac/S 250/2023-24/1058933600 1) Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)(Nfac) Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 20.12.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessment Was Framed By The The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 10(2) , Chennai Vide Order Dated 26.09.2019. 2. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 22 Days In Filing The Appeal. Considering The Period Of Delay We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri. S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. S. Easwar, IRS, JCIT
Section 144Section 69A

other sources under section 69A of the Act. Upon further appeal, the position remained the same and the assessee did not appear before the first appeal authority also. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed on merits by the Ld.CIT(A) for the reason that assessee failed to file relevant documents

Rangasamy Jayanthi, Salem vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1447/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1447/Chny/2023. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rangasamy Jayanthi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 333/21, Rajaganapathi Nagar, Ward 1(4) Chinnakollapatti Salem Salem 636 008. [Pan: Ajwpj 5240J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. S. Girish Kumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. S. Easwar, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.05.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. S. Easwar, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 68

Upon further appeal, the assessee filed written submissions on 31.10.2023 but the same was not found acceptable hence rejected by the by the first appeal authority. Accordingly, the assessment was confirmed against which assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee ... filed written submissions on 31.10.2023 but the same was not considered and dealt point wise by the first appeal authority. Ld. Counsel further contended that while passing assessment order, AO has estimated the agricultural income at Rs.5,50,000/- of the Act hence prayed for remanding back the appeal