“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

State Bank of India Staff Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 667/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

unintentional and inadvertent due to the circumstances beyond their control. It is further stated that he became unaware of the disposal of the first appeal by the learned CIT(A) only in December, 2023 when demand was sought to be enforced and then, they contacted the counsel prepared the appeal

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 756/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

DCIT 271(1)(c) of the Act and thereby hold the assessee liable to pay a sum of Rs. 6,20,000/-. In the first appeal the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the ld. AO in levying the penalty by holding that 5.13 In the instant case

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 755/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Modi Rubber Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 17(1), New Delhi

In the result, Ground no.2 is partly allowed

ITA 6866/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr.DR

Section 10(34)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

that the full consideration of ₹31.14 crore had accrued to the assessee immediately on the execution of the agreement for sale. 15.4 In first appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the amount in the escrow account had been kept by the purchaser to indemnify against breach of warranty or other

Batra Exports, Fazilka vs. DCIT, |TDS, Ludhiana

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 38/CHANDI/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 200ASection 234Section 234E

234E 2013-14/Q2 15.10.2013 03.01.2015 ii) Rs. 37,886/- 234E 2013-14/Q4 31.05.2014 02.01.2015 3. That the assessee filed the first appeal before the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi which was dismissed on 03.12.2021. 4. That aggrieved with the decision of CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi the assessee has filed

Batra Exports, Fazilka vs. DCIT, |TDS, Ludhiana

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 35/CHANDI/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 200ASection 234Section 234E

The ITO, Ward-3(2)(5), Ahmedabad vs. Shree Shreyanshnath Developers, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 3053/AHD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2007-08 Ito, Ward-3(2)(5) Shree Shreyansnath Developers Ahmedabad. Vs Block No.832, Binor Bungalows Ghuma Gam Tal. Daskroi, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaxfs 3932 L

Section 250(6)Section 80Section 80I

well as the arguments taken place during the course of hearing. In this case, the earlier assessment order has been passed on 15.12.2009 and first appeal decided by C.I.T.(Appeals) vide order dated 07.01.2011, wherein the appeal of the appellant has been allowed and thereafter, in Department's Appeal N0.3254/A/2010

Ram Bhushan Khedle, Bhopal vs. I.T.O. 5(2), Bhopal

ITA 292/IND/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Indore07 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Ram Bhushan Income-Tax Officer, Khedle, 5(2), S/O Shri Kishori Lal Bhopal Khedle, Plot No.4, Krishna Nagar बनाम/ Colony, Vs. Near Krishna Mandir, Khajuri,, Kalan Road, Bhopal. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Arepk8121D Assessee By Shri Arun Dwivedi, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.02.2024

Section 144Section 250(6)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

Income Tax Officer, Mandsaur vs. Oref Securities Pvt. Ltd., Mandsaur

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 254/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2013-14 Income-Tax Officer, Oref Securities Pvt. Ltd., Mandsaur 69, Agrasen Nagar, बनाम/ Mandsaur Vs. (Revenue/Appellant ) (Assessee /Respondent) Pan: Aabco 0111 G Assessee By Shri Subhash Chand Jain, Ca & Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 30.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.02.2024

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

treating the impugned addition of Rs. 11,77,50,000/- as concealed income. Aggrieved by penalty-order, the assessee carried matter in first appeal and succeeded. Now the Revenue has come before us in next appeal assailing the order of first-appeal. 3. During the course of hearing before

M/S. Ahura Welding Electrode Manufactures Limited, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1190/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1190/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Ahura Welding Electrode Dcit Manufactures Limited Corporate Circle-1 बनाम Site No.94 & 95, Sirpi Small Industrial Coimbatore. / Vs. Estate, Kallankatturpudur, Kinathukadavu, Coimbatore-641 109. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacca-2276-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Fca)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 07-02-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07-02-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (FCA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 154

Upon perusal of impugned order, it could be seen that the assessee’s first appeal was filed with a delay of 23 days. The Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay 2 and dismissed the appeal for want of condonation of delay without going into the merits ... order. The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of appeal. 3. We find that there was minor delay of 23 days in filing of first appeal. The assessee had preferred a rectification application u/s 154 which would have bearing on the grievance of the assessee. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) should

R.K. Sansthan, Jaipur vs. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur

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

ITA 777/JPR/2023[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Feb 2024AY 2024-25

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Lalwani, ProxyFor Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 147Section 269SSection 271DSection 272A(1)

equal to the amount of cash loan accepted by the assessee was levied upon the assessee u/s 271D of the Act. 2.3 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine for the reason that the assessee did not appear before

Demi Realtors, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the above terms

ITA 156/HYD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakhsmi, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 40a

given a fair opportunity of hearing on all the above issues." The appellant has filed an affidavit with regard to condonation of delay. The first appeal was filed after a delay of 4 days without payment of admitted tax and after the full payment of outstanding admitted

Zenith Weldaids Private Limited, Ghaziabad vs. Comissioner of Income Tax Appeal (NFAC), Delhi

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

ITA 3536/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahyazenith Weldaids Pvt. Ltd. Cit(Nfac) Vs. C-164, Bs Road, Industrial Delhi Area, Ghaziabad-201 003 Pan No. Aaacz 0626 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rakesh Kumar Garg, C.A. & Shri Ankit Garg, C.A. Revenue By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.02.2024

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

were carried out the CPC-Bangluru and intimation was issued enhancing the assessed income in the captioned assessment years. The CIT(A) in the first appeal has sustained the adjustments towards belated deposits of employees’ contribution to PF/ESIC in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme

Vishwanathareddy Chennareddy, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(7), Bengaluru

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

ITA 900/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI (Accountant Member), SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemasundara Rao P., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 250Section 251Section 68Section 69A

cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and the ld. AO made addition u/s 68 of the Act at Rs.61.98 lakhs. 3.1 During the first appeal proceedings, the learned CIT (Appeals) accepted the contention of the Assessee that the deposit of Rs. 30,00,000/- offered for taxation under

Vijay Kashinath Jagtap, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 1440/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

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

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 250Section 251Section 68

Rs.32,80,434/- to the total income of the Assessee under section 68 of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved, the Assessee filed first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner and raised the issue of treating Rs.32,80,434/- under section 68 of the Act, instead as ‘Salary income

Hatdaluibazar Sashya Utpadan O Bikray Samabay Samity Ltd, Burdwan vs. ITO, Burdwan

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

ITA 447/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 143(2)Section 69ASection 80P

made by the appellant society on demonetization period is perverse and unjust. 2 For that non consideration of explanation butressed by the appellant during first appeal regarding the source of said cash deposits being supported by all documental evidence including complete books of account is illegal

Nirma Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 487/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2013-14 Nirma Chemical Works Pvt. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Ltd. V. Tax Nirma House Circle-3(1)(1) Ashram Road, Ahmedabad Near Income Tax Circle Gujarat Ahmedabad-380 009 Gujarat Pan: Aaacn 5353 L अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" यथ" "" य "" य थ" थ"/ (Respondent) थ" Assessee By : Shri Hemanshu Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2024 & 23.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Coram: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Directed Against The Appellate Order Dated 19/05/2022 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Cit(A)” In Short] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Assessment Year 2013-14 (Din & Order No.Itba/ Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1043081956(1)), The Appellate Proceedings Have Arisen Before Ld.Cit(A) From Rectification Order Dated 16/02/2022 Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer(Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 154 Of The 1961 Act (Din & Order Nirma Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd. V. Dcit Ay 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Hemanshu Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 250Section 253(6)(c)Section 253(6)(d)

application filed by the assesse was processed by the AO vide order dated 16/02/2022 u/s 154 of the 1961 Act. 3.1. The assessee filed first appeal before Ld.CIT(A) against the rectification order dated 16.02.2022 passed by Revenue u/s.154 of the Act, and Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

Vidya Sagar Education Trust, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 427/AHD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2019-20 Vidya Sagar Education Trust The Income Tax Officer Sola Gam Road V. Ward-4(2)(5) Science City Road, Ahmedabad, Gujarat Sola, Ahmedabad – 380 060 Gujarat Pan:Aaatv 2930 L अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" यथ" "" य "" य थ" थ"/ (Respondent) थ" Assessee By : Shri Chirag R.Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chirag R.Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 167BSection 250

assessee-trust being aggrieved, filed its first appeal with Ld.CIT(A), and the assessee admitted before Ld.CIT(A) that assessee is not registered u/s.12A of the Act , but the assessee claimed that it is entitled for exemption u/s.10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act , and inadvertently the assessee has claimed exemption ... brought to tax income of Rs.67,97,457/-, after disallowing the claim of exemption u/s.11 of the Act. The assessee filed first appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) , and it was claimed that the assessee is not holding registration u/s.12A of the Act and assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s.11

ACIT, CC-2(1), Kol, Kolkata vs. Shalimar Hatcheries Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 546/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Appellant Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 3Rd Floor, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,......................Respondent 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, 17Th Floor, Everest House, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] - A N D - C.O. No. 13/Kol/2023 (In I.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,..................Cross Objector 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 35(1)(ii)

assessee and we passed the order in ITA No. 1943/AHD/2017. This order was followed in ITA No. 2318 of 2017 since in the first appeal tax effect was less, therefore, it was not challenged by the Revenue before the Hon’ble High Court. However, the second order in the case

DCIT-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reliance Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1149/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry () & Shri S Rifaur Rahman () Ι.Τ.Α. No.1147/Mum/2023 : A.Y. 2011-12 Ι.Τ.Α. No.1148/Mum/2023 : A.Y. 2012-13 Ι.Τ.Α. No.1149/Mum/2023 : A.Y. 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-14(1)(2), Mumbai Vs M/S Reliance Infrastructure Ltd, Room No.455, 4Th Floor Ground Floor, Reliance Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 19, Walchandhirachand Marg Mumbai-400 020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Appellant Pan : Aaacr7446Q Respondent Present For The Assessee : Shri Niraj Sheth (Ld. Adv), Sh. Jitendra Sanghvi (Ld. Ca) Present For The Department : Shri Rahul Kumar (Ld. Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24/01/2024 Order Per N.K. Choudhry (Jm): These Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee, Against The Separate Ordersevendated 08/02/2023 Impugned Herein Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ( In Short `Nfac') / Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short `Ld. Commissioner') Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, `The Act') For The A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012- 13 & 2015-16, Respectively. 2

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth (Ld. Adv)For Respondent: Shri Rahul Kumar (Ld. CIT DR)

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

then AO, whereby the total income of the Assessee was assessed at Rs.96,13,25,546/- against which also the Assessee preferred first appeal before the then Ld.CIT(A) who allowed the same vide order dated 27/01/2017 and therefore, the Assessing Officer while giving effect to the order dated 27/01/2017