“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

Durga Machtech Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. ITO, TDS Ward-1, Pune

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2727/PUN/2025[2013-14(24Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha (Virtual)

Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

basis of facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, the Ld CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, if any. The limitation in filing the appeal is not applicable when the jurisdiction is under challenge by the assessee. The assessee, therefore, prays

Pradeep Sharda, Dehradun vs. ACIT, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 223/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun25 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Pradeep Sharda Vs Acit 7, Inder Road, Dehradun Circle-1(2)(1) Uttarakhand -248001 Dehradun Pan-Adwps5692K Uttarakhand Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Anil Jain, Adv. Respondent By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 25.03.2026 Order Per Bench: The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.09.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)/Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Nashik [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Dehradun/10344/2019-20 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 01.11.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Practicing Doctor & E-Filed His Return Of Income, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 2,16,70,906/- On 30.10.2017. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Making Additions Of Inr 15,84,870/- Comprising Of The Disallowance U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act Of Inr 5,05,195/- & Treating The Agricultural Income Of Inr 6,25,000/- As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act & Of Inr 4,54,675/- As The Addition U/S 68 Of The Act On Account Of Cash Credit.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 68Section 69A

addition u/s 68 of the Act on account of cash credit. 3. In first appeal, Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition of INR 4,54,675/- made u/s 68 of the Act and confirmed the addition of INR 6,25,000/- made on account of agricultural income treated

Bhanu Pratap Singh, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(3), Kasganj

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 581/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 Bhanu Pratap Singh, 4B/5 Opp Sir Vs. Ito, Ward –4(3)(3) Gangaram Hospital, Old Rajinder Kasganj Nag, New Delhi Pan : Brkps7571N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

comply the notices issued by the first appellate authority. Ld CIT(A) was thus, compelled to pass ex-parte impugned order, dismissing assessee’s first appeal. The non cooperative 2 | P a g e conduct of the assessee during the first appellate proceedings cannot be appreciated. However, in the interest

Prabha Devi Gupta, Gwalior vs. ACIT, Gwalior

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 568/AGR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Mar 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 09-10 Prabha Devi Gupta, Mittal Bhawan, Vs. Acit, Gwalior Hans Travels, Kampoo Road, Gwalior Pan : Aclpg8541M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

assessee was determined at Rs. 2,56,54,850/-. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before ld CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex-parte. 5. Assessee has approached this tribunal on the ground that ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions made

Faizane Madina Agra Society, Agra vs. Circle 1(1)(1)- Agra, Agra

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 551/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18 Faizane Madina Agra Vs. Circle 1(1)(1) Agra Society, Nagla Mewati Tajganj, H.O., Agra. Pan : Aaatf4716E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Akash Agarwal, Ca. Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57

completed u/s. 143(3), vide assessment order dated 23.12.2019, assessing assessee’s total income at Rs. 41,39,653. 3. The aggrieved assessee preferred first appeal, which was dismissed ex-parte. 4. Assessee has approached this tribunal on the ground that ld CIT(A) had erred in confirming the said

Shabd Pratap Satsang, Shabd Pratap Ashram vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

adjournment prayer was rejected. Perused the records. Heard ld representatives for both the parties. 3. At the very outset it is noticed that first appeal was filed on 18.11.2022 against the assessment order dated 27.03.2019 passed u/s. 143(1) of the Act by a delay of about 1302 days ... hold that the delay has wrongly been refused to be condoned by learned CIT(A). We, accordingly condone the said delay in filing the first appeal before the first appellate authority. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The impugned order dated 25.08.2025 is set aside

Wattsun Energy, Kapurthala vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kapurthala

In the result, this penalty appeal is also remanded back to the Ld first appellate authority to be decided in tandem with the quantum

ITA 625/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. Nos.625 & 626/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Wattsun Energy, Pir Chaudhary Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Road, Kapurthala, Punjab. Kapurthala. [Pan:Aabfw6696B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 271FSection 272A(1)(d)Section 274

penalty proceedings initiated and subsequently imposed u/s 272A(1)(d),amounting to Rs. 10,000/-, for non compliance to notices dated 20/12/2019. 3.1 In first appeal proceedings, the assessee prayed for keeping the penalty appeal in abeyance on the ground that the appeal against the quantum is pending ... assessee, filed a copy of the notice u/s 148 dated 26/04/2018 issued by the AO , Khamgaon, Maharastra, and stated that the first appeal against quantum has been challenged on jurisdictional issue where I.T.A. Nos.625 and 626/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 3 the proceedings has been initiated by a non-jurisdictional

Parminder Singh Manes, Zira vs. Income Tax Officer, Ferozepur

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

ITA 925/ASR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C.A. (Virtual)

Section 147Section 250

belatedly by 88 (eighty-eight) days and the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating that since no physical order in first appeal has been served on him, he was not aware of the very existence of the order , because he is technically competent to access ... amount of Rs.69.45 has remained unexplained , and the same has been added back to the total income , against which the matter carried in first appeal has remained unrepresented in spite of notices being issued on six separate dates (as evident from para – 5 of the appellate order), to the registered

Mohit Jain, Indore vs. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 844/IND/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 144

Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 05.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 20.03.2026 sez1/O RDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 20.08.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated ... Page 1 of 4 Mohit Jain ITA No. 844/Ind/2025 - AY 2022-23 2. Ld. AR for assessee submits that the CIT(A) has decided first-appeal ex-parte qua assessee for the reason that the assessee did not make any submission before him despite opportunities given. He further submits that

DCIT-4(1), Indore vs. Oddiville Foods and Frozen, Indore

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 427/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 35ASection 80

Shri Anup Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 20.03.2026 amet /ORDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 12.03.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated ... disallowance u/s 35AD. Page 3 of 16 Oddiville Foods and Frozen ITA No. 427/Ind/2025 - AY 2018-19 (vi) | Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A), after being satisfied with submissions of assessee, reversed AO’s action and directed the AO to allow deduction

Lilawati Welfare Society, Ujjain vs. CIT Exemption, Bhopal

ITA 241/IND/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2026AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 12ASection 80G(5)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Lilawati Welfare Society, Ujjain vs. CIT (Exemption), Bhopal

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1014/IND/2025[NIL]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 12ASection 80G(5)

relating to section 12AB & 80G(5) but in present case, the Ld. CIT(E) has passed one composite order. Therefore, the assessee filed only first appeal. However, later when it came to the knowledge of assessee that even if a composite order has been passed by CIT(E), it would

Amrik Singh Through Legal Heir Kawalpreet Kaur, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Ghaziabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1366/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalamrik Singh Through Legal Heir Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Kawalpreet Kaur, 1(5), Ghaziabad, 206, Ground Floor, Niti Khand-1, Uttar Pradesh Indirapuram, Ghaziabad Pan: Achps0677E Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18/03/2026 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Legal Heir Of The Assessee Challenging The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Ghaziabad (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 31/08/2018 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. None Appeared For The Appellant. Considering The Issue Involved In The Present Appeal We Deem It Fit To Decide The Appeal On Hearing The Ld. Department'S Representative & Perused The Material Available On Record.

Section 143(3)

Appeal on merits. In view of the same, we hereby 4 Amrik Singh Vs. ITO condone the delay of three months in filing the First Appeal before the CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) and hereby direct the CIT(A) to provide opportunity ... being heard to the legal heirs of the Assessee and decide the First Appeal afresh in accordance with law. 10. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th March, 2026 (MANISH AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER Date

Vandana Singh, Noida vs. ITO 5(2)(5) Noida, Noida

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

ITA 2816/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarvandana Singh, Ito, 5(2)(5), 302, Abhinav Apartments, Noida, U.P. Vasundhra Enclave V. Delhi-110096 Pan-Dcrps8979A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69

assessee being aggrieved by the re-assessment order dated 28.03.2023 passed by the AO u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act filed first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee by treating the same as un-admitted by invoking provisions of section ... submitted that no notices were received by the assessee. It was further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the first appeal of the assessee u/s 250 of the Act by treating the same as un-admitted under provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act because

Tulu Koota Airoli, Mumbai vs. ITO-Exmp Ward 2(4), Mumbai

ITA 5791/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalιτα No. 5791/Mum/2025

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 249(2)

return of income ought to be considered. 3. Through ground no.1, assessee is contesting on the denial of condonation of delay in filing the first appeal by the ld. Addl./JCIT(A). Fact of the matter is that there was a delay of 1977 days in filing the first appeal ... which had arisen on account of intimation issued u/s.143(1). Thereafter, immediate necessary actions were undertaken of engaging a tax professional and filing the first appeal. These reasons were explained in the first appellate proceedings for condonation of delay, which were negated and the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable

Nidec Mobility India Private Limited, Gurgaon, India vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeal), Central Ner, Guwahati

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

ITA 3616/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sourav Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jadhav, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 92C

92CA(3) towards determination of ALP of Royalty payments made by the assessee to its AE. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(Appeals) raising as many as six grounds of appeal. The assessee not only raised grounds of appeal concerning the additions towards adjustment made towards ... vide orders u/s 92CA(3) towards determination of ALP of Royalty payments made by the assessee to its AE .The assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A), wherein the assessee challenged the addition as were made by the ld. AO in the 7 assessment order dated

Income Tax Officer Ward 6 (1), Mohali vs. Skycity Builders and Promoters Private Limited, Khrar Punjab

In the result, the corresponding grounds as raised by the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1217/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1066/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Ward 6(1) बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Livestock Complex Vs. Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1217/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit Ward 6(1) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Livestock Complex Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Vs. Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2026

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Yamini (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

Lacs was added to assessee’s income as unexplained expenditure and the assessment was framed which was subjected to assessee’s further challenge in first appeal wherein the assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment on legal grounds and also challenged quantum additions on merits. Appellate Proceedings 3.1 On legal

Skycity Builders and Promoters Private Limited, Kharar, Rupnagar vs. DCIT Ward 6(1), Chandigarh Jao ITO 6(1) Mohali, Chandigarh

In the result, the corresponding grounds as raised by the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1066/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Yamini (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

B.A. International, Meerut vs. DCIT Circle-1(3)(1), Haridwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 53/DDN/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Sumit Kaur Vs Cit(Appeals)/ Ito C/O-Matta Garg & Co., 13A, Subhash 15, Astley Hall, Dehradun, Road, Dehradun Uttarakhand-248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Dmapk1959K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri S.K.Matta, Ca Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 Order Per Bench: The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.12.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 06.11.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Advocate By Profession & Return Of Income Was Filed On 21.08.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 63,20,030/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Wherein Addition Of Inr 41 Lakhs Was Made By Holding The Investment Made In Fdr As Unexplained & Further Invoked The Provision Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act. 3. In First Appeal, Ld.Cit(A) Enhanced The Income & Confirmed The Addition Of Inr 60 Lakhs U/S 68 Of The Act By Holding That The Cash Deposited During Demonetization Period Is Unexplained & No Addition Is Sustained Towards The Investment In Fdr.

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

made by holding the investment made in FDR as unexplained and further invoked the provision of section 115BBE of the Act. 3. In first appeal, Ld.CIT(A) enhanced the income and confirmed the addition of INR 60 Lakhs u/s 68 of the Act by holding that the cash deposited during

Sumit Kaur, Dehradun vs. Income Tax Office, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/DDN/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68