“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

Tapovan Education Trust, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, CPC, Banglore

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

ITA 2349/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. & Shri

Section 11Section 12ASection 80G

Since common facts and issues are involved for all the appeals under consideration, all appeals are being taken up together. 2. The first appeal (in ITA No. 2311/Ahd/2017) pertains to non- granting of registration under Section 12A of the Act. The second ITA Nos. 2310&2311/Ahd/2017 & 2349/Ahd/2017 Tapovan Education Trust

Tapovan Education Trust, Vadodara vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Vadodara

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

ITA 2311/AHD/2017[N.A.]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 May 2024

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. & Shri

Section 11Section 12ASection 80G

Tapovan Education Trust, Vadodara vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Vadodara

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

ITA 2310/AHD/2017[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 May 2024

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. & Shri

Section 11Section 12ASection 80G

Chathankandath Usha, Kootanad vs. Income Tax Officer, Palakkad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 605/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Cochin20 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Smt. Jamuna Devi, Sr.D.R

Section 250

returned on estimate basis, the Revenue, on verification of the conduct of agricultural operations, estimated it at a lower sum which, on confirmation in first appeal, results in the instant appeal. The assessee though returning income in the same manner as in the past, the only year for which

Janaki Ammal Ayya Nadar Trust, Sivakasi vs. ITO, Exemptions, Madurai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 565/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.565/Chny/2024 (िनधा<रण वष< / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Janaki Ammal Ayya Nadar Trust Ito (Exemptions) बनाम 12A, Chairman Shanmugam Road Madurai / Vs. Sivakasi – 626 123 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatj-0704-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri V. Srikrishnan (Ca) – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Easwar (Jcit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 20-05-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-05-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of An Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] On 31-12-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Act On 24-10-2019. The Assessee Is Stated To Be A Registered Trust. The Registry Has Noted A Delay Of 4 Days Which Stand Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srikrishnan (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Easwar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144Section 2(15)

charitable in nature. Accordingly, surplus income was brought to tax. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same on the ground that the assessee’s first appeal for AYs 2011-12, 2014-15 to 2016-17 was dismissed which was confirmed by Tribunal in ITA Nos. 3235/Chny2019 order dated

Sudha, Trichy vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Trichy

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

ITA 216/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.216/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sudha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, A17/11, Krishnamoorthy Nagar Ext, Ward 1(3) Rajarajan Nagar, Trichy. K.K.Nagar, Trichy 620 021. [Pan: Aotps 7021Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69A

order under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 dated 24.12.2019 before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the assessee has filed written submissions before the first appeal authority. Although Ld.CIT(A) has given seven hearings during appellate proceedings but mostly during Covid-19 period. Accordingly, the assessment was confirmed on merits against

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-28, New Delhi vs. Era Infra Engineering Ltd., Noida, U.P

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

ITA 337/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 13(2)Section 132Section 14Section 14(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 7

revised/rectified under section 154 of the Act determining the Page 2 of 6 C.O. no. 28/Del/2024 income at Rs.649,84,06,413/-. In first appeal, the assessee got part relief. The reliefs granted by the CIT(A) were challenged by the Revenue vide 11 grounds of appeal. The assessee filed

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Rajeshkumar Ramjeebhai Desai, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 568/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Divetia, A.R. &

Section 69A

deposits, an addition of Rs.2,31,17,140/- was made U/s 69A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referrerd as the Act). 3. In first appeal, the addition as made by the A.O was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) against which the Department is in appeal before

M/S. Serene Senior Living Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Coporate Circle -2, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1349/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 1349/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Serene Senior Living Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.484-485, Ground Floor, Income Tax, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle 2, Chennai – 600 008. Coimbatore [Pan: Aaccc 9574C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 36Section 37(1)

section 143(3) of the Act dated 28.12.2019 before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the assessee did not appear after taking adjournments before the first appeal authority. Accordingly, the assessment was confirmed on merits against which assessee is in further appeal before us. 5. At the outset, Ld. Counsel

Danish Ahmed, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-35(1), Delhi

The appeals stand allowed, for statistical purpose, in terms of

ITA 2210/DEL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaita Nos:- 2207/Del/2024 To 2210/Del/2024) (Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2010-11)

For Appellant: Mr. Mayank Patawari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

served, adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee was not given., 4. As we go through the impugned orders, we observed that the first appeal was dismissed by the National Faceless Appellate Centre (NFAC) in a very superfluous manner, without even mentioning as to when and by what mode

Danish Ahmed, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-35(1), Delhi

The appeals stand allowed, for statistical purpose, in terms of

ITA 2209/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaita Nos:- 2207/Del/2024 To 2210/Del/2024) (Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2010-11)

For Appellant: Mr. Mayank Patawari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Danish Ahmed, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-35(1), New Delhi

The appeals stand allowed, for statistical purpose, in terms of

ITA 2208/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaita Nos:- 2207/Del/2024 To 2210/Del/2024) (Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2010-11)

For Appellant: Mr. Mayank Patawari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Danish Ahmed, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-35(1), Delhi

The appeals stand allowed, for statistical purpose, in terms of

ITA 2207/DEL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaita Nos:- 2207/Del/2024 To 2210/Del/2024) (Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2010-11)

For Appellant: Mr. Mayank Patawari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Sukh Darshan Singh, Delhi vs. ITO Ward.43(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2233/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 54F

Without prejudice to above argument(s), It may be noted here that Ld CIT(A) has acted in an arbitrary manner while deciding first Appeal of Appellant as he has failed to issue any SCN(show cause Notice) u/s 251(2) r.w.s 251(1) of IT Act 1961 while Ld.CIT

Vijayraj Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 592/PUN/2024[AY2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2024

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.592/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vijayraj Nagari Sahakari Vs. Ito, Ward-8(3), Pune. Patsanstha Maryadit, S.No.80/1/22, Kunj Residency, Sudarshan Nagar, Pimple Gaurav- 411027. Pan : Aacav1042J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.03.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Making The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 80P Of The Income Tax Act 1961 Of Rs.38,79,392/-, Disregarding The Appellant’S Contentions & Submissions In Support Of Its Claim.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 8Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

passed the assessment order & denied the deduction of Rs.38,79,392/- claimed u/s 80P of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved the assessee preferred first appeal before LD CIT(A)/NFAC, who vide order dated 06-03-2024, confirmed the findings of the AO & dismissed the appeal of the assessee

The Muslim Education Soc, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ratnagiri

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

ITA 588/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.588/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Muslim Education Soc., Vs. Ito, Ratnagiri. Saitavade, Ratnagiri- 415613 Pan : Aaatt8659C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.03.2024 Passed By Ld Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Ahmedabad For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition By The A.O. U/S 69A Of Rs. 13,17,470/- As Unexplained Money In Respect Of Cash Deposited In Bank Account, In Spite Of The Appellant Having A Clear Explanation For The Source Of Investment. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add To, Amend, Alter, Delete Or Modify All Or Any Of The Above Ground Of Appeal Or Raise A New Ground Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

/147 of the IT Act by determining taxable income at Rs.15,62,750/-. 4. Being aggrieved the assessee preferred first appeal. Since the appellant assessee remained absent even after various opportunities provided to furnish reply in support of the grounds of appeal, vide order dated 11-03-2024 Addl/JCIT

Thuruthiyath Suma, Wayanad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Kalpetta, Wayanad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed, and her stay application, dismissed

ITA 852/COCH/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2024

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Aruj Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 274

adjudication by him on merits. SA No. 192/Coch/2023 Thurutiyath Suma v. ITO 3.1 The explanation for the nearly 5 month delay in filing the first appeal by the assessee, as advanced before the ld. CIT(A), was that she had omitted to check her email account (i.e. sumat_madhu05@yahoo.co.in), being ... being liable to be drawn from the response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, also bearing out her credentials inasmuch as the first appeal was filed on 10.09.22, i.e., with dispatch, on becoming aware of the passing of the assessment order on the receipt of penalty notice

Best Aromatics Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Delhi

ITA 2467/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Best Aromatics Limited Ito 28, Jindal Itf Centre, Shivaji Vs Ward- 4 (1) Marg, West Delhi, Moti Nagar, Delhi New Delhi-110015 Pan No.Aagca1175K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 144BSection 147Section 154

appears that initially assessment was completed u/s. 143 (3) of the Act and assessment order dated 30.12.2019 was passed and which was challenged in first appeal. However, the assessee got settled the issue under VSVS on 17.03.2020 and the appeal was withdrawn on 07.01.2021. Subsequently the case was reopened ... r.w.s 148 and the assessment was completed on 29.03.2022 which was challenged again in the first appeal before NFAC. It appears that NFAC has passed the impugned order assuming the issue raised in the later appeal to be settled under the VSVS scheme. 6. In the light of the aforesaid

ITO Ward - 2(3), Ghaziabad vs. Shalini Gupta, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 6815/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

Shalini Gupta 13/11/2014 read with Order No. G-03/2014-15 dated 15/11/2014 on Pr. CCIT (CCA)-Kanpur, the Jurisdiction for the first appeal, in the present case, lies to CIT(A)-Ghaziabad. Contrary to the above Notification and the Order, the Ld. CIT(A) at Noida, passed the order impugned ... Considering the above facts and circumstances and taking into account that the Ld. CIT(A) –Noida has passed the impugned order in the first appeal having no jurisdiction and the same is nullity in the eyes of law, we are of the considered opinion that the Circular No. 3/2018 dated

Hukam Singh Shekhawat, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 264/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Chaudhary Addl. CIT

Rs.4.50 lacs derived from agriculture as explained and treated the balance deposit of Rs.12.40 lacs as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. It is noted from the written submission