“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

Govindaswamy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward (1)(2)(5), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 189/BANG/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian. S, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 68

explained cash credits of Rs.23,50,000/- plus Rs.36,62,000/- u/s 68 of the Act, against which the Assessee preferred its first appeal before the ld. Commissioner, who though afforded various opportunities to the Assessee by sending notices, however, the notices remained un-answered. Therefore finding no response from

Ika Yoga Wear Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 186/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Sudheendra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian. S, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 68

added the same in the total income of the Assessee. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the said addition before the ld. Commissioner by filing first appeal, who though acknowledged the challenge to the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 4.1.2019, in first appeal, however, inspite of deciding

Servier India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Serdia Pharmaceuticals (I) P. Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6567/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.6567/मुं/2011 (िन.व. 2005-06) Servier India Private Limited [Formerly Known As Serdia Pharmaceuticals (India) Pvt.Ltd.] 1703, 17Th Floor, B Wing, Parinee Crescenzo, Plot Nos C-38/39, “G” Block, Behind Mca, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 Pan: Aaacs-6696-R ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-7(2), Mumbai, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : Shri Mukesh Bhutani, Advocate With S/Shri Paras Savla & Pratik Poddar Advocates "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr & Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. A.R , सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 11/03/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Bhutani, Advocate with S/Shri Paras Savla & Pratik Poddar AdvocatesFor Respondent: S/Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR and Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. A.R

Section 133(6)

rendered by the Tribunal on 31/12/2010. By that time the assessment order for assessment year 2005-06 was already passed on 24/12/2008 and the first appeal of the assessee was pending for adjudication before the CIT(A). The order in assessee’s appeal was pronounced

Shri Adinath Vasantrao Wandhekar, Ahmednagar vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-4, Panvel, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands ALLOWED

ITA 1388/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 1388/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Adinath Vasantrao Wandhekar, At Post-Shevgaon, Davakinadan Khandoba Ngr., Ahmednagar-414502 Pan: Aaepw7481P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Prasad Bhandari [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [Ld. DR’]

Section 10Section 10(10)Section 10(10)(i)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(8)

270A(8) of the Act. ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 6 Adinath Vasantrao Wandhekar Vs ITO, Panvel ITA No.1388/PUN/2023 AY:2018-19 2.5 The first appeal against the aforestated imposition of penalty did fail to settle dispute in favour of the assessee. For the reasons the assessee

Aim Credit Capital Pvt Ltd, Paschim Midnapore vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 105/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Aim Credit Capital Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Room No. 3, Purnima Complex 4(3), Kolkata. Vill-Maheshwaripur, Ps Salboni, Vs. P.O. Syedpur, Paschim Midnapore, West Bengal-721147. (Pan: Aacca2464R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Jalan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bonnine Debarma, JCIT

Section 144Section 144(1)Section 250

supra, we dismiss this appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed." 3.2. The first appeal by the assessee was thus, dismissed and the addition so made was confirmed. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Present appeal

Carmel Convent, Thiruvananthapuram vs. ITO Exemption Ward, Trivandram, Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petition is dismissed

ITA 689/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmi

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

this issue. Thus, this ground of appeal is dismissed. (emphasis, supplied) It’s claim for exemption being denied, which stands confirmed in first appeal, aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal. 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 3.1 The basis of the Revenue

Muthoot Agri Projects and Hospitalities P. Ltd, Maharastra vs. ACIT, Trivandrum

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 153/COCH/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 57

liable to be capitalized but assessed as income from other sources u/s.56. It was accordingly assessed at Rs.231.62 lac, and confirmed in first appeal for the same reason, both the assessing and the first appellate authority relying on the decision in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers

Arunachalam Sivakumar, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 2(1), Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1416/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Hema Muralikrishnan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 69A

time of hearing, Ld. AR, at the outset, submitted that the first appeal has been dismissed for non-prosecution by applying the decision in CIT Vs. M/s. Multi Plan India Ltd. 38 ITD 320 and there is no adjudication on merit. The Ld. AR pleaded for another opportunity

Shri. Ramkumar Muniraju, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1142/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Shri Joseph, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

added the same in the income of the Assessee. 3. The Assessee being aggrieved with the Assessment Order though preferred first appeal, but inspite of sending four notices by the Ld. Commissioner, the he neither filed any reply/documents nor substantiated his appeal by any other mode and therefore Ld. Commissioner

Sanjeev Kumar Goel, Hapur vs. ITO Ward-3(5), Hapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3187/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14 Sanjeev Kumar Goyal, Vs. Ito, 607, Railway Road, Ward-3(5), Patel Nagar, Hapur, Hapur. Uttar Pradesh 245 101 Pan Aatpg1790N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

During penalty proceedings before the Ld. AO, the assessee requested the Ld. AO to keep the proceedings in abeyance till disposal of his quantum first appeal pending before the Ld. CIT(A), Muzafarnagar. After the disposal of the quantum first appeal, the Ld. AO issued show cause notice

Mohammed Nasir Mohammed Yusuf Patel, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Panvel

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 902/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

foregoing delay of 607 days in filing of the lower appeal at the assessee’s behest before NFAC is condoned. The assessee’s first appeal before the NFAC is directed to be taken afresh for appropriate adjudication on all the issues raised before it as per sec.250

ACIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi vs. Stonex India Pvt Ltd, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1784/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

unaccounted sales on the basis of statement of the I.T.A. No.1784/Del/2022 15 Director in the course of search proceedings. The CIT(A), in first appeal, recorded the findings of fact that the AO has referred to various rough sheets which pertained to later years relevant

Associated Soapstone Distributing Co Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as indicated

ITA 243/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 37Section 43B

Income Tax Department, evidencing that the appeal is also pending as on date is as under:- = Ccallus ¥ Be Oo CO PRIVATE LIMITED Proceeding Name : First Appeal Proceedings Assessment Year: 2018-19 PAN © 13sep-2021 Financial Year: 2017-18 ‘AAGCA2491N Oper + Add / View Authorised Representative Name of A ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING

Jeetendra Singh Rathore, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyajeetendra Singh Rathore, Vs. Ito Ward 2 (2), 15/4, Acacia Vatika City, Gurgaon. Sector 49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 003 (Haryana).

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

appellant along with supporting evidence and the explanations furnished/provided during the course of the proceedings in the assessment as well as the first appeal. 2. The Ld. Addl. CIT-A was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.7,50,000 made by the Ld. AO under section

Sushila Bhardwaj, Jaipur vs. ITO 1(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 604/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 54

account of this reason an addition of Rs. 37,59,795 has been made by the ld. AO which is under dispute. In the first appeal the ld. CIT (A) concurred with the view of the ld. AO by stating that reverse indexation is also an acceptable method. Before

Ratan Chand Goel, Bahraich vs. ITO-2, Bahraich

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

ITA 331/LKW/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Ratan Chand Goel, Vs. The Income Tax Officer-Ii, Mohalla – Indira Nagar, 423-A, Vaishnavpuram, Risia Bazar, Huzoorpur Road, Bahraich- 271875 Bahraich- 271801, U.P. Pan: Ailpg 1104C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Shubham Rastogi, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/02/2024

Section 250

ample evidence that he had filed the requisite documents before the Assessing Officer. The assessee has also demonstrated that he had manually filed the first appeal. Therefore, on the facts of the case and keeping in mind the submissions of both I.T.A. No.331/Lkw/2023 5 the parties, we restore the file

The DCIT(Central)-I, Bhopal vs. M/S. Shriniwas Education Society, Bhopal

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 13/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.02 & 13/Ind/2017(Ays: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Dy. Commissioner Of Shriniwas Education बनाम/ Income-Tax, Society, Vs. (Central)-I, E-5, 3Rd Floor, Bhopal Tawa Complex, Bittan Market, Bhopal (Pan:Aaaas 7060 B) (Appellant/Revenue) (Respondent/Assessee)

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 132Section 153ASection 69B

these matters wherein the AO, while finalising assessments, made certain additions. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matters in first-appeal and got substantial relief. Now, the revenue as well as assessee have come in next appeals before us on their respective grievances emanating from order of first-appeal. 4. The grounds ... Further, the AO held this as a violation of section 13 of the Act. During first appeal, the CIT(A), however, reversed AO’s order. 10. Ld. AR for assessee carried us to Page No. 2 of Paper-Book being a reply-letter dated 24.03.2014 filed by assessee

Sandeep Kherada, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 610/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal (CA)For Respondent: MS Alka Gautam (CIT)(V.H)

Section 131Section 144

being the value of jewellery seized, was added as income of the assessee in the year under consideration. In the first appeal the ld. CIT(A) did not find merit in the arguments of the assessee and rejected the contention of the assessee that 822.560 gms. of jewellery were received

Mohd Shahid Mohd Yusuf Qureshi, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 2788/MUM/2023[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry () & Miss. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 131Section 132Section 144Section 250

Rs.65,780/- (-) Rs.9,562/). The assessee being aggrieved against the assessment order, passed under section 144 of the Act by the Assessing Officer preferred first appeal before the Ld.Commissioner. The Ld.Commissioner, though provided the opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim with regard to the explaining and proving

ACIT -14 (1) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals India P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Appeals and Cross Objections filed by the Revenue Department and the Assessee are allowed in part and full respectively for the statistical purposes

ITA 1644/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm & Acit, Circle- 14(1)(2) M/S. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Room No. 455, 4Th Floor, India Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 1802/ 1901, G-Block, Road, Mumbai- 400020 Vs Capital Plot No. C-70, Bandra- Kurla Complex, Bandra-East, Mumbai- 400051

For Appellant: Shri. Vishal Kalra, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Prakash Kishinchandani

Section 143(1)Section 250

also initiated on this issue.” 4. The Assessee being aggrieved with the aforesaid addition/disallowance of Rs. 6,14,25,224/- preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who accepted the claim of the Assessee qua reimbursement of expenses by holding as under: 3.3. Decision: 3.3.1 I have considered the facts