“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

M/S. S.R. Ferro Alloys, Jhabua vs. The PCIT, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 148/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

Section 263

grounds raised by the assesse are only specifying the reasons for challenging the validity of the impugned order. We further note that this is first appeal against the impugned order passed u/s 263. Therefore, there is no legal impediment in raising the legal grounds against the impugned order. Accordingly

Permali Wallace Pvt. Ltd, Bhopal vs. ITO (It & Tp), Bhopal

ITA 552/IND/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 195Section 195rSection 201(1)Section 271CSection 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

created demand of tax and interest and also proposed for initiation for penalty u/s 271C. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal but could not get desired relief. Now, the assessee has come in these appeals before us. Page 7 of 29 Permali Wallace P. Ltd., Bhopal ... resident has rendered services in India. Accordingly, the AO rejected assessee’s reply and held liable for TDS. The assessee carried matter in first appeal but could not succeed. 10. Before us, Ld.AR for assesseeneither claimed that the impugned payments do not fall in the definition of “FTS” prescribed

Permali Wallace Pvt. Ltd, Bhopal vs. ITO (It & Tp), Bhopal

ITA 551/IND/2018[15-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Nov 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 195Section 195rSection 201(1)Section 271CSection 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

Permali Wallace Pvt. Ltd, Bhopal vs. ITO (It & Tp), Bhopal

ITA 550/IND/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Nov 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 195Section 195rSection 201(1)Section 271CSection 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

Smt. Irvind Kaur Gujral, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 477/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 5(1)(c)Section 90(3)

amount of rent for the period 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 (Australian FY) as calculated at Pg 6-8 of the order. 8.4 In the first appeal the Ld. CIT(A) from Pg 19 to 31 of the order after referring to section 90(3) of the Act, CBDT Notification No.91/2008

Jaisingh H Solanki, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2210/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajeya Kumar Ojha, D.R

assessee he being a retired person from business and staying in the village and partly to his tax consultant who has pursued the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and has not filed the appeal within time and in these circumstances the assessee should not be made to suffer

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji vs. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mathiyan, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 4/PAN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3 & 4/Pan/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14

Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 153ASection 56(2)(vii)

Both the sides are in agreement that the facts and circumstances of the addition made for the A.Y. 2013-14 and deleted in the first appeal are mutatis mutandis similar to the preceding year. Following the view taken hereinabove, we approve the impugned order on this count

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji vs. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mathiyan, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 3/PAN/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3 & 4/Pan/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14

Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 153ASection 56(2)(vii)

Ram Kumar Dhiman, Delhi vs. AO Ward-26(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 2706/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 Ram Kumar Dhiman, Vs. Ao, Ward-26(4) B-145, Opp. Nehru Place, New Delhi. Kalkaji, New Delhi. Pan Aiepd2121R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Sunder Mangla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271BSection 44A

decided the penalty appeal first even though the quantum appeal is still pending. Since the quantum of sale is yet to be decided in first appeal, it is urged that the penalty matter be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh after the quantum appeal

Dhanesh Jyotindra Kothari, Mumbai Suburban vs. Income Tax Office(It)-3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2952/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 2952 & 2951/Mum/2023 (A.Y: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dhanesh Jyotindra Vs. Ito (It) – 3(1)(1), Kothari,A-Wing, Flat No. Air India Bldg, 6, Mahavir Krupa, Nariman Point, Vallabh Baug Lane, Mumbai-400021. Extn. Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai-4000077 Pan/Gir No. : Adapk9004H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Kirit.S.Sanghvi.Ar Respondent By : Shri. G.J.Ninawe. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.11.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 147 R.W.S 144C & U/Sec 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri.Kirit.S.Sanghvi.ARFor Respondent: Shri. G.J.Ninawe. Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

which caused delay in filing the appeal Relief claimed The delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) be condoned. 2 No disposal of First Appeal on merits The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not disposing of the appeal on merits. 3 Order

Sohanlal Motilal Jain, Borivali vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2551/MUM/2023[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Shri.Narendra Kumar Choudhry ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ram Prakash Rastogi. Ld

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

Rs.7,04,535/- vide order dated 11/03/2015 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act passed by the AO. The Assessee being aggrieved, preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner challenging the penalty order. As it appears from the impugned order (para 1.1) that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) though afforded various

Blue Rose Industrial Premises Co-Op Society Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 2227/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryblue Rose Industrial Premises Cit(A), Co-Op. Society Limited Nfac, 43, Blue Rose Industrial Delhi-110 001 Premises Co-Op. Society Limited Vs. Wester Express Highway, Borivali (E), Mumbai-400 068

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Smitha V. Nair, Ld. DR

Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Assessee as „income from other sources‟ u/s. 56 of the Act. 4. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the said addition/disallowance by filling first appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who affirmed the action of the ld. A.O. in disallowing such deduction claimed. The Assessee being aggrieved is in appeal before

Ushadevi Purushothaman, Kochi vs. The ITO Non Corp Ward 2(5), Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 324/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Lukose Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

only issue in quantum assessment is qua the assessee’s export turnover, assessed at Rs.288.55 lakhs by the Assessing Officer (AO), reduced in first appeal to Rs.177.12 lakhs. The assessee’s returned turnover (Rs.94.14 lakhs) bears nil export turnover, and, further, being below the threshold limit of Rs.100 lakhs ... merchant exporters for Rs.2914.17 lakhs, so that the balance Rs.288.55 lakhs was regarded as her export turnover and, accordingly, assessed at 8% thereof. In first appeal,a further reduction of Rs. 111.43 lacs was allowed in view of furnishing confirmations from another two exporters, even as claimed during the assessment

Ushadevi Purushothaman, Kochi vs. The ITO Non Corp Ward 2(5), Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 162/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Lukose Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

The Neerikode Service Co-Op Bank Limited No 1682, Neericode vs. ITO Ward 3, Aluva

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as not maintainable, and the stay applications dismissed as infructuous

ITA 954/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Jose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

plea by Shri Jose that Shri Anil Kumar, being a promotee, was not aware of the legal formalities is in our view misplaced. The first appeal has been filed in time, i.e., when he was in-charge, disproving the assessee’s claim in this regard, even Page 3 ITANo. 954/Coch

DCIT, Cochin vs. Shri M George ( Mukkadayil Joseph George), Cochin

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 525/COCH/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasdy. Cit, Circle 2(1), Range – 2 M.J. George C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road, Mukkadayil House Kochi 682018 Vs. Krishnaswamy Cross Road Ernakulam, Kochi - 682035 [Pan: Adgpg6991D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Sri Sajit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Assessee By: Sri R. Lokanathan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2023 Order Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Agitating The Allowance Of The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 31.12.2008 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2006-07, By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kochi [Cit(A)] Vide His Order Dated 31.03.2011. 2. The Facts Of The Case In Brief Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Who Had Returned His Income For The Year At Rs.63,420/- (From Business & Other Sources), Was Found To Have A Credit Of Rs.899.10 Lakhs In His Bank Account On 14.02.2006. The Same Was Explained In The Assessment Proceedings As Sale Proceeds Of 5.21 Acres Of Land At Kakkanad Village, Falling Under Thrikkakara Panchayat, Sold For Rs.977.10 Lakhs Vide Registered Sale Deed Dated 13.02.2006. The Sale Was In Pursuance Of An Agreement To Sell Dated 09.01.2006, Receiving Rs.78 Lakhs As Advance. The Said Land

For Appellant: Sri R. Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Sri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)

land being not a ‘capital asset’ is the bone of contention between the parties, with the assessee’s case having been since accepted in first appeal, so that the Revenue, aggrieved, is in further appeal. 3. This is the second round before the Tribunal. In the first, the Tribunal vide

Abhishek Navnitkumar Doshi, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(7), Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 530/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.530/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Abhishek Navnitkumar Doshi, Vs. The Ito, 204/205, 2Nd Floor, 6/1911-12, Ward-2(3)(7), Jin Shanti Building, Surat Surat – 395003, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhpd0064M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 12/10/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2023

Section 132Section 144Section 147Section 148

trading of polished diamonds. The ld CIT(A) noted that in that case the AO made disallowance of entire bogus purchase and on first appeal before CIT(A) the disallowances were maintained. However, the Tribunal gave partial relief to the assessee directing to sustain the addition @12% of such bogus

Alok Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward 1(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 570/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CITa

Section 271B

271B of the I.T. Act, 1961 for not getting audited the accounts. Issue demand Notice, Challan and other statutory forms. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO as to imposition of penalty u/s 271B of the Act by passing an ex-parte order

Milestone Dewellers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 565/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147

incurred fully in the previous year but the construction work was carried out for almost past more than 10 years. In the first appeal the assessee was given the various hearings including Video Conferencing during the course of appellate proceedings, confirmed the action of ld.AO of referring the matter

Digamber Singh & Sons Properties Private Limited, Kumher vs. ITO, WD-1, Bharatpur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 421/JPR/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2023AY 2014-2015

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 4Section 40A(3)

making addition of Rs16,01,500/ on account of disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act. The bench also noted that in the first appeal the assessee was issued the notice on 23.12.2020, 29.01.2021, 08.06.2021 & 17.04.2023. On the last occasion the assessee filed a letter stating some details required