“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 Thankamany Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Idukki vs. ITO Ward 2, Thodupuzha

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for on the aforesaid terms

ITA 914/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Ms.Swathy S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80P(2)(a)

deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i). The same was not accepted, and the income accordingly assessed at Rs.9,45,960, which found confirmation in first appeal, so that, aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal. 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. A mere glance

Vishwakarma Educational Trust, Trivandrum vs. DCIT, Exemption Circle, Trivandrum

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

ITA 901/COCH/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Cochin11 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasvishwakarma Dy. Cit (Exemptions) Educational Trust Aayakar Bhavan 14, Ulloor Lane Peroorkada Road, Kowdiar Vs. Dpi Junction, Jagathy Thiruvananthapuram 695003 Trivandurm 695014 [Pan:Aaatv1824D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:11.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Agitating The Dismissal Of It’S Appeal Contesting The Processing Of It’S Return Of Income Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Dated 30.10.2019 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19,By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department (Nfac, Delhi) [Cit(A)] Vide Order Dated 25.7.2022. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Charitable Trust Registered U/S. 12Aa Of The Act, Filed It’S Return Of Income For The Relevant Year On 28.8.2018 Declaring Nil Income, I.E., Claiming Exemption U/S. 11 On The Entirety Of It’S Income. The Same Was Processed U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act, Denying It The Benefit Of Section 11 Of The Act, I.E., At An Income Of Rs. 13,34,692. The Denial Of Exemption Was For The Reason Of Non-Audit Of It’S Accounts And, Consequently, Non-Filing Of The Audit Report, Required To Be Filed In The Prescribed Form (Form 10B), Along With The Return Of

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12Section 12(1)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

income, so that the said adjustment fell within the purview of section 143(1)(a) of the Act. The same being confirmed in first appeal, the assessee is in second appeal. 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 3.1 Section

Ahluwalia Erectors & Fabricators Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 433/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra Addl. CITa

Section 143(3)Section 234B

this head comes to Rs. 92,47,097/- (Rs.11,61,487/-) as declared by the assessee + Rs.80,85,610/- as above addition) 5.4 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO. From the records, it is noted that the assessee had claimed ... ACIT, KOTA is no valid basis at all and authorities below proceeded on mere suspicion, the entire disallowance allowed in full.’’ 6.2 In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO for which the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 6.3 After

Jagmohan Kabra HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO-31(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed fro statistical purposes

ITA 2293/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Shyam SabooFor Respondent: MS Smitha V. Nair

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

would be more conscious and will make every compliance in accordance with law. I observe that the Assessee on 4th April, 2016 had filed first appeal against the assessment order dated 4th June, 2016 passed u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, however, the first notice

Shri Sumermal B Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO -19(3)(4), M Umbai

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

ITA 2230/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: MS Smitha V. Nair

Section 143Section 250Section 68

also made the addition of Rs. 6,33,873/- as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. Though the Assessee preferred first appeal before ld. CIT(A) however in spite of sending 3 notices dated 13th January, 2023, 12th April, 2023 and 22nd May 2023 respectively for the dates

Ravesha Pigments Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi and AO (National Faceless Assessment Cenre, Delhi

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

ITA 1366/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri B R Baskaranshri Pavan Kumar Gadaleraveshia Pigments Ltd, Vs. Nfeac, 11Th Floor Casablanca, Delhi. Gulmohar Cross Road No. 10, Vile Parle (W) Mumbai-400049. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr7272E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Bhavin . J. Marfatia.ARFor Respondent: Smt.Sayogita Nagpal. CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Rs.54,00,000/- (which includes the salaries of Rs .42 ,00,000/-) and the balance of Rs.56,40,000/- Stands allowed in the First appeal order after verification of forms 16Accordingly, the question of sustaining the disallowance of Rs. the salaries of Rs. 42 ,00,000/ does not arise

Sh. Nawal Kishore Dangayach, A-34-A, Ram Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 304/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary ( Addl. CIT) a

Section 14ASection 37

Rs.78,311/- is hereby disallowed u/s 14A of the I.T. Act and added back to the total taxable income of the assessee.’’ 2.2 In first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) by referring to the Explanation inserted by Finance Act, 2022 to section 14A with effect from 01.04.2022 which provides that ... hereby disallowed and added to the total taxable income of the assesee in the year under consideration. We note that in first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that’’…. It is evident that the interest on TDS is not an allowable expenditure. Therefore, the disallowance made

Sibasankar Sahu, - Deogarh vs. PCIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 217/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.217/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Sibasankar Sahu, Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Arnapurna Store, At: Bania Sahi, Po/Ps: Deogarh Dist-Deogarh-768108 Pan No. :Apeps 1706 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, Dated 18.03.2022, Passed In Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1041011837(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 199 Days. It Was The Submission That The Delay Was On Account Of Medical Treatment Of The Assessee’S Father & Assessee’S Wife. It Was The Submission That The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In Trading Of Potatoes, Onion & Garlic In The Remote Area Of The District Of Deogarh, Odisha. It Was The Submission That The Assessee Was Not Well- Versed In Taxation Issues & On Account Of The Medical Treatment Of The 2 Assessee’S Father As Also The Assessee’S Wife, The Assessee Could Not File

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 144ASection 263Section 44A

cash deposited in the assessee’s bank account representing the sales. It was the submission that the assessee had filed first appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and in the meantime Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 had been introduced and the assessee opted for the said scheme

Sunil Pagaria, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 198/JODH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234Section 54F

reply dated 04/05/2018 attached at Pg No 54 to 97. Yet the Ld. AO did not consider without considering case laws furnished. In first appeal, it has been argued on similar line like:  Provision of section 54F in force up-to AY 2014-15 permit investment in more than residential

Mavelikara Aided School Employees Co-Op Society Ltd, Mavelikara vs. ITO Ward 1, Thiruvalla

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 974/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Rajukutty Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

disallowance was also rejected inasmuch as there was no mistake apparent from the record in the Intimation u/s.143(1)(a), which stands confirmed in first appeal for the same reason. Mavelikara Aided School Employees’ Co-op So.Ltd. v. ITO 3. We have heard the parties before us, and perused

The DCIT, Circle-2(1), Thrissur vs. Sri.K.P. Johny, Thrissur

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him)For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 147Section 148(1)Section 69

vide an Agreement dated 20/2/2014. The same having been not returned, forms the subject matter of assessment. The instant appeal follows part relief in first appeal; both sides challenging the impugned order in part. 3. Before us, both the sides relied on the orders by the Revenue authorities ... para 10.1) Page 3 ITANos. 206 & 254/Coch/2019 (AY: 2014-15) K.P. Johny vs. Asst. CIT 6. The assessee next agitates the part sustenance in first appeal of an addition for Rs.51,72,056 toward unexplained investment in immovable property (IP),i.e., at Rs.35,72,056. The assessee

Sri.K.P. Johny, Thrissur vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1), Thrissur

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 206/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him)For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 147Section 148(1)Section 69

B K Automatics, Rohtak vs. ITO, Ward-5, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1822/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI G.S PANNU, HON’BLE (President), SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Nikitaa Gupta, Adv

Section 250Section 6

assessee raised in form no. 35 therefore the matter may kindly be restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudication of first appeal on merits. 4. The ld. Senior DR supported the orders of the authorities below. However he could not controvert the factual position stated

Nitin Kumar Garg, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1306/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148

total investment being Rs.54,47,500/- as unexplained investment. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A), in the first appeal, after taking note of the facts emanating from records, observed that source of investment to the extent of Rs.2,52,500/- is found

Gudwala & Sons, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1919/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

Aggrieved by the additions and disallowances, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A), in the first appeal, perused the statement of partner Shri Kailash Chandra Varshney recorded under Section 131 dated 20/09/2014 & another statement under s.132(4) of the Act dt. 21/09/2014 ... unexplained source and consequent enhancement of Rs.3,13,44,002/- to this effect carried out by the CIT(A). 9.3.1 In the first appeal by the assessee against the order of the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A), in exercise of its power under s. 251(1)(a) issued show cause

Prathamik Krushi Pattin Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Bedkihal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Nipani

ITA 24/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) Asstt Sr

Section 250Section 253(1)Section 80P(2)

Marcel Urban Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd. & Ors Vs ITOs, ITA No.002 & 022 to 024/PAN/2023 3. In adjudicating these matters together, first appeal viz; ITA No. 02/PAN/2023 is taken as lead case, resultantly our adjudication laid in succeeding paragraphs shall mutatis-mutandis apply to remaining three appeals

Shri Gopalkrishna Co-Operative Society Limited, Bhatkal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Karwar

ITA 23/PAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) Asstt Sr

Section 250Section 253(1)Section 80P(2)

Shri Gopalkrishna Co-Operative Society Limited, Bhatkal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Karwar

ITA 22/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) Asstt Sr

Section 250Section 253(1)Section 80P(2)

The Marcel Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Marcel vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(3), Panaji

ITA 2/PAN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) Asstt Sr

Section 250Section 253(1)Section 80P(2)

Laxman Singh Rathore, Vaishali Nagar Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(4), Jaipur

In the result, for statistical purposes, appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 431/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CITa

Section 148

LAXMAN SINGH RATHORE VS ITO, WARD 5(4), JAIPUR agriculture income and addition of Rs.9.75 lacs on account of unexplained cash deposits. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee and upheld the order of the AO being non-attending the case by the assessee