← 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

Gunasekaran Mannar, Villupuram vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1864/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1863, 1864, 1855, 1856, 1857 & 1858/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Gunasekaran Mannar, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 91, Kamaraj Street, Income Tax, Villupuram 605 602, Villupuram. Central Circle 1(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aacpg0230G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 24.04.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

made addition to that effect and completed the reassessment under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 vide his order dated 30.03.2024 for AY:2017-18. In first appeal, the learned CIT(A), upheld the addition of the entire alleged suppressed turnover and held the Section 115BBE of the Act is not applicable

Gunasekaran Mannar, Villupuram vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1858/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1863, 1864, 1855, 1856, 1857 & 1858/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Gunasekaran Mannar, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 91, Kamaraj Street, Income Tax, Villupuram 605 602, Villupuram. Central Circle 1(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aacpg0230G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 24.04.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

made addition to that effect and completed the reassessment under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 vide his order dated 30.03.2024 for AY:2017-18. In first appeal, the learned CIT(A), upheld the addition of the entire alleged suppressed turnover and held the Section 115BBE of the Act is not applicable

Gunasekaran Mannar, Villupuram vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1856/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1863, 1864, 1855, 1856, 1857 & 1858/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Gunasekaran Mannar, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 91, Kamaraj Street, Income Tax, Villupuram 605 602, Villupuram. Central Circle 1(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aacpg0230G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 24.04.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

made addition to that effect and completed the reassessment under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 vide his order dated 30.03.2024 for AY:2017-18. In first appeal, the learned CIT(A), upheld the addition of the entire alleged suppressed turnover and held the Section 115BBE of the Act is not applicable

Gunasekaran Mannar, Villupuram vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1855/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1863, 1864, 1855, 1856, 1857 & 1858/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Gunasekaran Mannar, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 91, Kamaraj Street, Income Tax, Villupuram 605 602, Villupuram. Central Circle 1(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aacpg0230G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 24.04.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

made addition to that effect and completed the reassessment under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 vide his order dated 30.03.2024 for AY:2017-18. In first appeal, the learned CIT(A), upheld the addition of the entire alleged suppressed turnover and held the Section 115BBE of the Act is not applicable

Pranay Mohan Lokegaonkar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7400/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2015-16 Pranay Mohan Lokegaonkar, Ito, Ward 22 (2)(1), 1, Vatsala Niwas, Sohan Singh Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Chawl, Santacruz-West,- Mumbai – 400012. Mumbai- 400054. Pan – Acxpl4887B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vishwas Mehendale, (Virtually Present) Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.10.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2015-16. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessing Officer, Vide Assessment Order Dated 29.03.2022 Under Section 147 Read With Sections 144 & 144B Of The Act, Has Made The Additions Of Rs.36,00,000/- & Rs.1,12,50,000/- On Account Of Unexplained Investment Under Section 69 Of The Act & Claim Of Long-Term Capital Gain Respectively. 2 Pranay Mohan Lokegaonkar

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas MehendaleFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, SR. D.R
Section 147Section 249Section 250Section 69

section 69 of the Act and claim of long-term capital gain respectively. 2 Pranay Mohan Lokegaonkar 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, filed a first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner challenging the aforesaid additions; however, could not get any relief, as the Ld. Commissioner, by holding that the Assessee

Prerna Navinyapurn Mahila Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Navi Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 28(2)(1)Mumbai, Vashi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7392/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2017-18 Prerna Navinyapurn Mahila The Income Tax Officer, Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Ward 28 (2)(1), Room No.932, 933 Ss Ii, Sector Vs. 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi 7 Koperkhairane, Station Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400709. Maharashtra – 400703. Pan – Aacap7862Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Ld. Adv. Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.09.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessing Officer, Vide Assessment Order Dated 28.04.2023 Under Section 147 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Has Made An Addition Of Rs.10,44,854/- Being Unexplained Cash Deposit Under Section 69A Of The Act. 2 Prerna Navinyapurn Mahila Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Ld. SR. D.R
Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 69A

section 69A of the Act. 2 Prerna Navinyapurn Mahila Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition by filing a first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who, by impugned order, affirmed the said addition, dismissing the appeal of the Assessee by passing a cryptic order

Panchnand Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 27(2), Mumbai, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7383/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2016-17 Panchnand Enterprises, Deputy Commissioner Of 204, 204, Prince Apartments, Income Tax, Circle 27(2) Vs. Gopal Lane, Ghatkopar- West, It-Office, Vasi Railway Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400086. Station Building, Navi Pan – Aalfp3931E Mumbai -400703. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Shreeraj Abbas Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (Sr. D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.09.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessing Officer, Vide Assessment Order Dated 18.03.2024 Under Section 147 Of The Act, Has Made The Additions Of Rs.60,00,000/- & Rs.6,79,630/- Under Sections 68 & 69 (C) Of The Act, Respectively, As Unexplained Investments.

For Appellant: Shri Shreeraj AbbasFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. D.R.)
Section 147Section 250

Sections 68 and 69 (C) of the Act, respectively, as unexplained investments. 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the aforesaid additions by filing a first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. However, despite issuing five notices, made no compliance, except 2 Panchnand Enterprises seeking adjournments on two occasions. Thus

Prakash Jewellers, Mumbai vs. ACIT 32(2), Mumbai Bandra

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

ITA 6850/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year: 2017-18 Prakash Jewellers, Acit 32 (2) 31 B-1 2Nd Floor, Meghdoot, S V Room No. 720, 7Th Floor, Road, Borivli West, Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan C-41 To C- Vs. Maharashtra – 400092 43 G Block Bandra East, Mumbai, Maharashtra Pan : Aaafp4374Q 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.10.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessing Officer Vide Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2019 Has Made An Addition Of Rs. 5,90,00,000/- Being Cash Deposited, In Yes Bank By The 2 Prakash Jewellers Assessee During The Demonetization Period, As Unexplained Cash Credit Under Section 68 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, SR. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 250Section 68

period, as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. 3. The Assessee being aggrieved against the said addition/ the Assessment Order preferred first Appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. 4. The Ld. Commissioner though issued various notices to the Assessee, however as per impugned order, the Assessee made

Parekh Marketing Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6563/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year: 2018-19 Parekh Marketing Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 2Nd Floor, Mafatlal House, Income-Tax Circle Backbay, Reclamation, Mumbai Vs. 1(2)(1), - 400020. Room No.535, 5Th Floor, Pan – Aaacp7917J Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Deepak Jain, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri R A Dhyani, (Cit D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.08.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2018-19. 2. In This Case, The Assessee During The Year Under Consideration Being A Company Derives Income From Business & Profession, House Property & Capital Gains Has Declared Its Total Income Of Rs.33,37,07,913/- By Filing Its Return Of Income On 21.11.2018 Which Was Processed By The Cpc Vide Intimation Dated 29.05.2020 Under Section 143 (1) Of The Act, Making Certain 2 Parekh Marketing Limited

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Jain, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT D.R.)
Section 115Section 143Section 154Section 250Section 36Section 45

intimation dated 29.05.2020. Thus, the Assessee being aggrieved challenged the said rectification order dated 12.05.2022 under Section 154 of the Act, by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. The Assessee before the Ld. Commissioner raised mainly three issues such as: (i) not reducing the provision of earlier year written