← 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

Balaji Shrushti Chs Ltd, Panvel vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Panvel

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 524/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.523 & 524/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2020-21 & 2021-22 Balaji Shrushti Chs Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Panvel. Ground Floor, Plot No.3, Sector 19, New Panvel Navi Mumbai- 410206. Pan : Aaaab8345G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Dated 19.02.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A) Addl/Jcit (A), Prayagraj For The Assessment Years 2020-21 & 2021-22 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.523/Pun/2024 For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

that the CPC has not issued any notice u/s 143(1)(a) to the appellant assessee before making any adjustment to the income. In first appeal LD Addl/JCIT(A) relying on a decision of PCIT & Ors vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (Karnataka High Court, 2017) held that interest earned from

Balaji Shrushti Chs Ltd, New Panvel vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Panvel

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 523/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.523 & 524/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2020-21 & 2021-22 Balaji Shrushti Chs Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Panvel. Ground Floor, Plot No.3, Sector 19, New Panvel Navi Mumbai- 410206. Pan : Aaaab8345G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Dated 19.02.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A) Addl/Jcit (A), Prayagraj For The Assessment Years 2020-21 & 2021-22 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.523/Pun/2024 For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

that the CPC has not issued any notice u/s 143(1)(a) to the appellant assessee before making any adjustment to the income. In first appeal LD Addl/JCIT(A) relying on a decision of PCIT & Ors vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (Karnataka High Court, 2017) held that interest earned from

Amit Kumar Bhati, Haryana vs. ITO Ward-3(4), Gurgaon

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6011/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Yr: 2010-11

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

unaccounted income of the assessee and added the same to the total income. Addition of Rs.49,64,940/- was challenged before CIT(A) in first appeal. 2.2 The assessee has claimed that the deposit of Rs. 1,98,59,760/- in the ICICI bank is out of the fact that

Palghat Fine Arts Society, Palakkad vs. JCIT Palakkad Range, Palakkad

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 109/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Ms.Rajalakshmy M, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

maintained bank accounts, through which the sums could be routed. No reasonable cause, saving penalty, was made out. The same were confirmed in first appeal by the ld.CIT(A), holding as: 2 ITA No. 35 & 109/Coch/2023 (AY : 2012-13) Palghat Fine Arts Society v. Jt.CIT ‘6. Decision The order u/s.271D

Sachin Kanodia, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 42(2), New Delhi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 9504/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2024AY 2015-16

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

Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 68Section 69C

made in the assessment order dated 24.12.2009 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act in the first appeal filed with learned CIT(A) for the assessment year 2005-06 and hence the finding of the AO has attained finality. Since the said findings

Mayank Tiwari, Indore vs. ITO-3(2), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 34/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Indore09 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Mayank Tiwari, Income-Tax Officer, 54, Anoop Nagar, 3(2), A.B. Road, Indore. बनाम/ Indore. Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Ahvpt0169P Assessee By Shri Harsh Vijayvargiya, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2024

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

notices u/s 143(2)/142(1). Ultimately, the AO passed assessment- order determining total income at Rs. 36,85,300/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal to CIT(A) but could not succeed. Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in next appeal before us. 3. Ld. AR for assessee carried ... certain evidences from assessee but the assessee was not able to furnish replies before him. Then, Ld. AR carried us to the order of first-appeal passed by CIT(A) to show that the assessee filed the required documents by way of additional evidences to CIT(A) under rule

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Imi Alloys Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4367/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

failed to discharge its onus in proving genuineness of the purchases and dealers. During assessment proceedings, the addition was made on estimation @ 12.5% In first appeal, the addition was restricted to 3% and on further appeal to the Tribunal by the Revenue, the addition was enhanced to 6%. The entire

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Imi Alloys Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4366/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

failed to discharge its onus in proving genuineness of the purchases and dealers. During assessment proceedings, the addition was made on estimation @ 12.5% In first appeal, the addition was restricted to 3% and on further appeal to the Tribunal by the Revenue, the addition was enhanced to 6%. The entire

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Imi Alloys Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4365/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

failed to discharge its onus in proving genuineness of the purchases and dealers. During assessment proceedings, the addition was made on estimation @ 12.5% In first appeal, the addition was restricted to 3% and on further appeal to the Tribunal by the Revenue, the addition was enhanced to 6%. The entire

Pragati Pre Fab India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 13 (1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2652/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 276Section 276C(2)Section 9

aggregating to Rs.11,20,00,000/-. Against assessment order dated 28/03/2016, assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. During the pendency of first appeal, assessee opted for ‘Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme’ and filed declaration on 31/01/2021 under Direct tax VSVS Rules 2020. However, the said application / declaration

Mithalal Ratanchand Jain, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income (A)-11, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4316/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Mithalalratanchand Jain Commissioner Of Income Tax 2Nd Floor, Shanti Niwas, (A)-11, Pune New Golden Nest Phase-Xiii, Vs. 100 Ft. Road, Bhayander(East), Mumbai – 401105 (Pan : Aappj1942F) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair,Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Accordingly, addition of Rs. 22,22,372/- was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 4.2 After the disposal of aforesaid first appeal, Assessing Officer took up the penalty proceedings and imposed a penalty of Rs. 8,20,500/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition confirmed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), Delhi, I.P.Estate, New Delhi vs. Curadev Pharma Private Limited, Vikaspuri, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed as above

ITA 175/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C. N.Prasad & Shri A. K. Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 35

research & development expenses of Rs. 23,76,000/- claimed under section 35(2AB) of the Act and ESOP expenses of Rs.23,14,800/-. In first appeal, the disallowance of ESOP expenses of Rs. 23,14,800/- was deleted by the CIT(A), which was challenged, in this appeal

Pinky Wadhwa, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-44(7), Delhi

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

ITA 151/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 250Section 69A

parte against the assessee without taking cognizance of the submissions made on behalf of the assessee. The ld. Counsel next submitted that the first appeal arose out of the best judgment assessment under Section 144 of the Act and thus urged for restoration of matter to the file

Indus Towers Ltd, Gurugram vs. ACIT, Circle 10(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2172/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mahajan, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)

disposed off. 6. On a bare reading of such observations, it is apparent that CIT(A) has not examined the grievances raised in the first appeal on merits and dismissed the appeal summarily as infructuous. The approach adopted by 4 the CIT(A) is totally incomprehensible and is clearly opposed

Shri Nitin Nandlal Shrishrimal, Dhule vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Dhule, Circle

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

ITA 1366/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1366/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Nitin Nandlal Vs. Acit, Dhule Circle, Shrishrimal, Dhule. 1269, Agra Road, Near Gandhi Statute, Dhule- 424001. Pan : Azvps8225M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Naimish Dixit Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 18.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)Pune - 11, For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Present Appeal Is Filed Belatedly I.E. With The Delay Of 15 Days. The Appellant Furnished An Application Praying For Condonation Of Delay In The Circumstances Mentioned Therein. Ld. Sr. Dr Could Not Controvert The Averments Made In The Above Affidavit. We Are Of The Considered Opinion That The Reasons

For Appellant: Shri Naimish DixitFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 44A

that LD CIT(A) was not correct in observing that E filing scheme was introduced from August 2020. In fact the E filing of first appeal was made mandatory from June 2016 & the regular counsel based in Dhule was not aware with E filing of appeal/ Technology & therefore he advised

Arputhaaj Rajan Sudhakar, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward-1(6), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 498/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.498/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Arputharaj Rajan Sudhakar Ito, बनाम/ No.30, Aadijan Street, Non- Corporate Ward -1(6), Vs. Mandaveli, Chennai – 600 028. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Avgps-5383-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30-04-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-05-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

hearing, none appeared for assessee. The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeal. 2. We are of the opinion that the first appeal should not have been dismissed on delay since substantial delay was covered by Covid-19 Lockdown. Nevertheless, we direct Ld. CIT(A) to admit

Boopathy, Salem vs. ITO Ward-1(1), Salem

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

ITA 369/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 144

against the order under section 144 of the Act dated 25.09.2019 before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the assessee did not appear before the first appeal authority. Accordingly, the assessment was confirmed on merits against which assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. At the outset, Ld. Counsel

Annadurai Kathiresan, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Namakkal

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

ITA 368/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.368/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Annadurai Kathiresan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.1-A5/173, Palkarar Colony, Ward 1, Periyapatty Post, Namakkal. Namakkal Taluk, Namakkal 637 002. [Pan: Ayipk 1660N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Addl Cit, Irs, सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri () This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1058562981 (1) Dated 07.12.2023. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Namakkal For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Passed U/S.144 Rws 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated 10.12.2018. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Has Filed The Return Of Income But Failed To Explain Sources For The Cash Credits. Therefore, On The Basis Of Air Information The Case Of The Assessee Has Been Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act. The Ao Has Passed Order Under Section 144 R.W. Section 147 Of The Act Dated 10.12.2018 Making An Addition Of Rs.31,63,754/- Towards Unexplained/Unproven Deposits In Bank Account.

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, Addl CIT, IRS
Section 144Section 147

under section 144 r.w. section 147 of the Act dated 10.12.2018 before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the assessee did not appear before the first appeal authority. Accordingly, the assessment was confirmed on merits against which assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. Before us, the ld. Counsel

Sakshi Maheshwari, Kota Rajasthan vs. ACIT, DCIT, Central Circle, Kota, Kota Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 584/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

assessed income of Rs. 37,84,150/- on 21.12.2018 after making addition of Rs.29,75,651/-on account of unexplained jewellery. In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO. It is not imperative to repeat the facts of the case but it is also 21 SAKSHI

Kamboj Trading Company, Guruharsahai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3, Ludhiana

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

ITA 622/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: None (Written Submission)For Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 272A(1)(d)

addition under section 40b(ii)]. 11. The AO order is dated 18/06/2021. Being aggrieved the assessee preferred first appeal before CIT(A) under section 250 who by impugned order dt. 29/09/2023 has dismissed the same. 12. In the impugned order dt. 18/06/2021 the Ld. CIT(A) has observed that various