“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

Kartikay Nayyar, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Dlehi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2342/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 153ASection 271ASection 68Section 69Section 69C

were initiated by the AO for undisclosed income for the A.Y. 2017-18. 4.2 Aggrieved with the assessment order, the appellant filed first appeal before ld. CIT(A). The Id. CIT(A) vide order dated 16.10.2019 in appeal no. 685/18-19 has partly allowed the appeal of the appellant

Neetu Nayyar, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2335/DEL/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 254

Addition of Rs. 9,55.542/- on account of addition to capital account from undisclosed sources of income Aggrieved with assessment order, the appellant filed first appeal before CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A)-14, Delhi vide order dated 06.01.2015 in Appeal No. 30/13-14 confirmed the above both additions made

Shiv Kumar Nayyar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2333/DEL/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya[Assessment Year: 2007-08]

Section 147Section 148Section 254

account of addition to capital account from undisclosed sources of income. 3.1. Aggrieved with assessment order, the assessee filed first appeal before CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A)-14, Delhi vide order dated 06.01.2015 in Appeal No. 29/13-14 confirmed the above both additions made by AO. 3.2. Subsequently, the appeal

Rahul Maheshwari, Jaora, Ratlam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ratlam

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 267/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 Rahul Maheshwari, Ito, 111/1, Pathan Toli, Ward 1, बनाम/ Jaora, Ratlam Ratlam Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Atwpm4233A Assessee By Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.01.2024

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 145Section 147Section 148Section 69A

regarding source of deposits of Rs. 16,18,317/- in bank accounts. Accordingly, the AO made addition u/s 69A. Aggrieved, the assessee went in first appeal and challenged the legality of proceeding done by AO u/s 147 as well as the impugned addition made by AO on merit. Before ... assessee made a detailed submission which is re-produced in Para 4 of order of first-appeal passed by CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) rejected assessee’s all arguments and dismissed appeal. Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in next appeal before us. 3. Before

Divya Exim Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7442/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasl. Ita/Co No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 2010-11 Divya Exim Pvt. Ltd. Dcit C/O. Kapil Goel, Adv. Central Circle – 25 F-26/124, Sector – 7 New Delhi Rohini, New Delhi-85 2. 2014-15 Renu Jain -Do- C/O. Kapil Goel, Adv. F-26/124, Sector – 7 Rohini, New Delhi-85 3. -Do- Nisha Jain -Do- C/O. Kapil Goel, Adv. F-26/124, Sector – 7 Rohini, New Delhi-85 Assessee By Shri Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By Shri T. James Singson, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.01.2024

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

Section 143(3) of the Act and certain additions/disallowances were made. The action of the AO was confirmed by the CIT(A) in the first appeal. The assessee has knocked the door of the Tribunal against the impugned first appellate orders in respective appeals captioned above. 5. When the matter

Nisha Jain, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5957/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

Renu Jain, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5952/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Ina Bearing India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 540/AHD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R

required to be paid as quid pro quo for such services. The AO made the transfer pricing addition to the above extent. In the first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) observed that similar issue was raised in the assessee's appeal for the immediately preceding assessment year. Following his view

The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Ina Bearing India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 539/AHD/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R

Kk Radhakrishnan, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed on the aforesaid terms, and stay application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 494/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das & Sa No. 104/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2008-09)

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

Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153D

therefore be regarded as including the said fee. We find no infirmity in the addition thereof u/s. 69C of the Act. The assessee, in first appeal, has sought to justify low personal expenses on the basis of agricultural income of the joint family. The same, in our view, ought

M/S Ayush Ajay Construction Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The DCIT Central-(1), Indore

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 174/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Ayushajay Construction Pr.Cit-1, Private Limited, Indore. बनाम/ 3/3, South Tukoganj, Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aacca 5523 B Assessee By Shri Prakash Jain & Ms. Shreya Jain, Cas Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.01.2024

Section 143(3)Section 263

basis that the income accrued to the assessee on the date of the award. The assessment was confirmed by the AAC on first appeal. In second appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal, two contentions were raised by it. It was urged that the amount of compensation received

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Ritesh Jain, Indore

ITA 794/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

drawn by AO to make addition of Rs 185,00,000 which is impugned here before us. In first appeal, before Ld CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO has rejected assessees detailed submissions challenging reopening action u/s 148 of the Act and while confirming the addition made

Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 205/CHNY/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.204/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & 2.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.205/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2004-05) M/S. Southern Petrochemical Acit / Ito बनाम Industries Corporation Limited Corporate Circle-6(2) / 88, Spic House, Mount Road, Guindy, Corporate Ward-3(1) / Vs. Chennai-600 032. Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4668-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocates)-Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit)-Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj KumarFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 194CSection 41(1)Section 43B

value of an asset has to be added back with the book profits, confirmed the adjustment made by Ld. AO. Further, the assessee, in first appeal for AY 2008-09, claimed deduction thereof i.e., in the assessment year in which such provisions are reversed and credited to Profit & Loss account

Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 204/CHNY/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj KumarFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 194CSection 41(1)Section 43B

Monika Chakarvarty, Kota vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Circle

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 413/JPR/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 412 & 413/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2017-18 Monika Chakarvarty Prop. M/s Vipin Medicals, Nayapura, Kota. cuke Vs. DCIT Circle, Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AELPC 3801 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Sidharth Ranka (Adv.), Shri Sorabh Harsh (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Anup Singh (Ad

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Ranka (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

date of hearing. This fact were clearly brought to the notice of the ld. CIT(A) at the time of hearing of the first appeal, the CIT(A), although discussed the additional ground and the submission of the assessee on the issue, but there Monika Chakarvarty vs. DCIT

Monika Chakarvarty, Kota vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Kota

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 412/JPR/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jan 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Ranka (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Vinay Khetan, Noida vs. DCIT Circle 5(2)(1), Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3427/DEL/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Amit Rai, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

penalty of Rs.70,50,000/- towards furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by invoking Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. In the first appeal, the assessee did not get any relief from the CIT(A) and hence this appeal. 5. When the matter was called for hearing

Ghspl Sambhav Knj Healthcare LLP, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-50(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 884/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292BSection 68Section 69A

GHSPL Sambhav KNJ Healthcare LLP, AY 2017-18 relevant documents and details in the appellate proceedings resulting in the dismisal of the first appeal. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that compliance could not be made by the assessee due to certain unavoidable reasons and thus, pleaded that the matter ... impugned first appellate order, assessee has failed to provide the required details and documents to adjudicate upon the issues raised in the first appeal. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed certain details and documents in the course of hearing before us containing chart for cash deposit in the bank

Yash Paul Mehta, Ajmer, Rajasthan vs. ITO, WD 2(1), Ajmer, Rajasthn

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

ITA 670/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Arpit Vijay (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar(CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

evidence to prove the genuineness of the same both during the course of the assessment proceedings as well as during the course of the first appeal proceedings in spite of availing reasonable number of opportunities to do so. Thus, the appellant's contentions in this regard are not acceptable

Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church, Ochanthurthu vs. CIT Exemptions, Kochi

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

ITA 58/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasour Lady Of Perpetual Help Cit (Exemptions) Church C.R. Building Ochanthurthu Vs. I.S. Press Road Ernakulam 682508 Cochi 682108 [Pan:Aaato1832L] (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)

time barred inasmuch as the same forms the basis for raising the claim of it being for the following year, which stood accepted in first appeal in principle inasmuch as the ld. CIT(A) holds the Intimation as being for AY 2011-12 – making his final adjudication all the more