“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

Dy.Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle-1(1), Bilaspur(Cg) vs. South Eastern Coafields Limited, Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are either allowed, partly allowed for statistical purposes or dismissed, in accordance with our observations herein above

ITA 204/BIL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.201/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.401/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.162/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.102/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.169/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.33/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Vs Jcit, Range-1, Bilaspur Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.382/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.188/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.171/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.54/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate, Shri Ankur Goel & Shri Ankit Agrawal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/10/2023

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "यायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी र"वश सूद, "याियक सद

South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. JCIT, Range-1, Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are either allowed, partly allowed for statistical purposes or dismissed, in accordance with our observations herein above

ITA 201/BIL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

Sreeni Parameswaran, Ernakulam vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Kochi

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

ITA 186/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dassreeni Parameswaran Asst. Cit, 7/42 – B5, Mystic Bells Corporate Circle- 2(1) Villa No. 1, Eroor Desom Kochi Nadama Village Vs. Ernakulam 682308 [Pan: Bahps6202C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. K. Krishna, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2023 O R D E R Per:Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Agitating The Order Dated 20.01.2023 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac), Dismissing His Appeal Contesting His Assessment Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter "The Act") Dated 28.03.2016 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. The Only Issue Arising In The Instant Appeal Is The Validity Or Otherwise In Law, In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Of The Addition By Way Of Deemed Dividend U/S. 2(22)(E) Of The Act For Rs. 62,44,215,Since Confirmed In The First Appeal.

For Appellant: Ms. K. Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 2(22)(e)

addition by way of deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act for Rs. 62,44,215,since confirmed in the first appeal. 3. The background facts of the case are that the assessee, a Director in Shwas Homes Pvt. Ltd. (SHPL), a company in the business of construction

M/S Al Kanz Money Exchange Pvt Ltd, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Thrissur

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

ITA 902/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasal Kanz Money Exchange Pvt. Ltd The Income Tax Officer 551, Kalliarambil Memorial Bldg. Ward – 1(1), Kaipamangalam P.O. Vs. Thrissur Moonnupedika, Thrissur 680681 [Pan:Aahca8425H] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.K. Jayan, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Part-Allowance Of It’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 20.12.2019 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-3, Kochi [Cit(A)] Vide His Order Dated 28.07.2022. 2. The Assessee-Company Is In The Business Of Money Exchange, I.E., Buying & Selling Foreign Exchange. As Explained To Us During Hearing, Persons Visiting Kerala From Abroad Are It’S Clients, Who Tender Foreign Currency Thereto, Which In Turn Is Exchanged By The Assessee With Authorised Dealers, Earning A Small Commission. It Has Necessary Approvals From The Regulatory Authorities. It Returned An Income Of Rs.(-)21,523For The Year, Which Was Initially Subject To A Limited Scrutiny In View Of Large Cash Withdrawals (From The Bank). The Scope Was Later Enhanced To Complete

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

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271ASection 292C

would, on the other hand, rely on the impugned order, emphasizing it as very reasonable, and which explains the near total relief allowed in first appeal. Further, the gross profit rate of 1.8% is admitted as the average of the preceding two years, duly audited, for which reference was made

Sri.E.Noushad, Kollam vs. The DCIT, Kollam

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

ITA 18/COCH/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

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

Section 132Section 132ASection 153ASection 153C

Appeals, i.e., for three consecutive years, being Assessment Years (AYs.) 2007-08 to 20090-10, by the assessee, directed against the part-confirmation in first appeal of his assessments under section 153A r/w s. 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 31.03.2014 by the Commissioner of Income ... Noushad vs. Dy. CIT assessee is a partner, on 22.09.2011. The appeals contest several additions made in the assessment, confirmed in the main in first appeal. 4.1 The assessee’s case before us, relyingon the recent decision in Pr. CIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell

Sri. E.Noushad, Kollam vs. DCIT, Kollan

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

ITA 17/COCH/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

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

Section 132Section 132ASection 153ASection 153C

Sri.E. Noushad, Kollam vs. DCIT, Kollam

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

ITA 16/COCH/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

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

Section 132Section 132ASection 153ASection 153C

The ACIT Corporate, Cochin vs. M/S.Kera Fibertex International P. Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the appeals by the assessee is allowed, and that by the Revenue, dismissed

ITA 361/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Manomohan Das (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. Sathisan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(2)Section 153Section 153B

draft order. We say so as the demand notice in original forms part of the documents required to be submitted while filing first appeal. Though no such case stands made by the Revenue before us, we say so by way of abundant caution, so that even assuming issue

M/S.Kera Fibertex International P. Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, the appeals by the assessee is allowed, and that by the Revenue, dismissed

ITA 311/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Manomohan Das (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. Sathisan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(2)Section 153Section 153B

Wholery Infrastructure Private Limited, Kota, Rajasthan vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota, Rajasthan

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

ITA 525/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 139(9)Section 154Section 154(1)(a)Section 44A

invalid return for the AY 2017-18, the application for rectification u/s 154 filed by the assessee is hereby rejected. 2.2 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- ‘’5. Appellate decision:- The appellant has raised four grounds of appeals ... invalid return for the AY 2017-18, the application for rectification u/s 154 filed by the assessee is hereby rejected.’’ In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under:- ‘’In this case, the rectification application filed by the appellant

Shri Khandelwal Diamonds Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 375/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Him On The Reason Of Issuing Notice U/S 148 On Borrowed Satisfaction Of Another Wing Of The Department.

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

Section 143(3)Section 148

relying on the judgement of the Hon`ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of Sanjay Oilcake Industries (2008) (10 DTR 153). First Appeal : An appeal was preferred to the Ld. CIT (A) who concurred with the view of the ld. AO sustained the order. Grounds of Appeal ... Jain in the AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 and in case of AY 2011-12 made 100% addition in the returned income. In first appeal the ld. CIT (A) sustained the findings of the ld. AO but restricted the addition in all the three years @ 12.50% of the amount

Sidharth Co-Operative Credit & Thrift Society Limited, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 241/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 241/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sidharth Co-Operative Credit & Thrift Society Limited 01, Nayapara, Titrudhi, Durg (C.G.)- 490 020 Pan : Aagas2471Q

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

affidavit” seeking condonation of delay stating as under: “Reason for delay The case of assessee was being represented by another counsel upto the first appeal stage. For preparation and arguing the appeal before ITAT, the assessee wanted to engage some other counsel who was practicing in litigation matters. Looking

Income Tax Officer, Surat vs. Magnifique Gems Private Limited, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 458/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.389 & 458/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Magnifique Gems Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 105, Rajshree Building, Maniyara 1(1)(4), Surat, Aayakar Bhawan, Sheri Na Naka,Mahidharpura, Near Majura Gate, Opp. New Surat-395003. Civil Hospital, Surat-395001

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

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

Magnifique Gems Private Limited, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(1)(4), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 389/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

Shri Nirav P. Doshi, Mumbai vs. I.T.O. Ward-3(3), Kayan, Kalyan

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed, on the same terms

ITA 2270/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Shashank Mehta, Ld. CounselFor Respondent: Ms. Smitha V. Nair, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 250Section 69C

added the same in the total income of the Assessee u/s 69C of the Act, which stands affirmed by the ld. Commissioner in first appeal. The ld. AR, Mr. Shashank Mehta submitted that a reasonable profit element can be estimated by considering various judgments passed by Hon’ble Co-ordinate

Shri Nirav P. Doshi, Thane vs. I.T.O. Ward-3(3), Kayan, Kalyan

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed, on the same terms

ITA 2269/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2010-2011

For Appellant: Mr. Shashank Mehta, Ld. CounselFor Respondent: Ms. Smitha V. Nair, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 250Section 69C

Vikas Sharma, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 256/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 256/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Vikas Sharma Quarter No.6-A, Ruabandha Sector, Bhilai, Dist. Durg (C.G.)-490 006 Pan : Ddcps1720P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bhilai, Durg (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal &For Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

line appeal before commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). It is hence requested to kindly keep proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) in abeyance till disposal of first appeal. Copy of Acknowledgement of Form no. 35 and copy of Form no. 35 is attached for your verification". 5.1.2 The reply of the appellant

Jajoo Hygiene P Ltd, Indore vs. The ACIT/DCIT 2(1), Indore

ITA 161/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Jajoo Hygiene Pvt. Acit/Dcit, Ltd., 2(1), 304-A, Indore. बनाम/ Subhlabh Residency, Khajrana Chouraha, Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aadcj 0657 Q Assessee By Shri Prakash Gupta, Ca & Shri Shashank Sharma, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.10.2023

Section 143(3)Section 288BSection 50CSection 56Section 56(2)(viib)

made, the assessee did not file any explanation. Ultimately, the AO made addition while framing assessment. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal and submitted to CIT(A) that it had charged Rs. 20/- per share after rounding off of Rs. 19.23 per share for simplicity; that ... come in next appeal before us. 6. Ld. AR for assessee argued on the same line of reasoning as made by assessee in first appeal before CIT(A), namely (i) the assessee collected Rs. 20/- per share instead of Rs. 19.23 per share for simplicity; (ii) the difference

Bhagwan Das Rai, Itarsi vs. The ITO Ward-, Itarsi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 16/IND/2023[22017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Oct 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Bhagwandas Rai, Ito, M/S.Deva Marketing, Ward-2, बनाम/ Hospital Road

Section 144Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

upheld. 6. We have considered rival contentions of both sides and perused the assessment-order as well as penalty-order passed by AO and first appeal- order passed by CIT(A). On a careful consideration of assessment-order, a copy of which is available in case-file, we find that

Mafatlal Harakchandji Bothra, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(3) Mumbai, Mumbai Maharashtra

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2395/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhmafatlal Vs. Ito 19(2)(3) Harakchandjibothra, 1St 2Nd Floor, Matrumandir Flr 388 Majestic Masion, Tardeo Road, Girgaon S.O, 400004, Mumbai – 400007 Mumbai Maharashtra – 400007

For Appellant: Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Ajay Singh

Section 147Section 148

disputed purchases. This profit percentage was estimated by the learned Assessing Officer for A.Y2009-10 at 15% and for A. Y2010-11 at 12.5% On first appeal, the learned CIT (A) directed the learned Assessing Officer to estimate the profit percentage at 12.5% for both the years. Since, in the instant