“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

P R Sudeep, Alathur vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Thrissur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Aroraand Shri Manomohan Dasp.R. Sudeep Dy. Cit, Parakkal Bharath Gas Agencies Central Circle Bank Road, Alathur Vs. Thrissur Palakkad 678541 [Pan:Axsps7870B] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.V. Venkitaraman, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing:13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:27.09.2023 O R D E R Persanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Confirmation Of Penalty Under Section 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’)For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15, Levied Per Order Dated 28.6.2017, In First Appeal By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kochi-3 [Cit(A)], Vide His Order Dated 01.01.2021. 2. The Assessee’S Case Before Us & The Only One At That, Was That The Penalty Is Not Maintainable As Its Initiation, Upon Expressing Satisfaction In Its Respect In The Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2016, By Issue Of Show Cause Notice U/S. 274 Of Even Date, Is Bad In Law Inasmuch As It Is Qua Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C), No Longer Applicable For Search Cases, I.E.,01/7/2007 Onwards & Not As U/S. 271Aab Of The Act, Where The Search Is Initiated On Or After 01/7/2012 & For Which We Were Taken By Sh. Venkitaraman, The Learned Counsel For The Assessee, Through Sections 271 And271Aab Of The Act, As Well As The Impugned Notice (Pb Pg. 24).

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

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 292B

penalty under section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’)for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15, levied per order dated 28.6.2017, in first appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kochi-3 [CIT(A)], vide his order dated 01.01.2021. 2. The assessee’s case before

Dignus Services, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 29(6), New Delhi

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

ITA 117/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.116 & 117/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20 बनाम Dignus Services, Ito, Cb-358, 3Rd Floor, Ring Road, Vs. Ward 29(6), Naraina, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No Aanfd4934F. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

Dignus Services, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 29(6), New Delhi

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

ITA 116/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Mapaaex Remedies (P) Ltd., Bhopal vs. The DCIT /ACIT -2(I), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 19/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Indore26 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2016-17 Mapaex Remedies Acit/Dcit,2(1), P.Ltd., Bhopal बनाम/ E-7, Hig 500, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan:Aaecm2274P Assessee By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Shri Gagan Tiwari, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 25.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

Mapaaex Remedies (P) Ltd., Bhopal vs. The DCIT /ACIT -2(I), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 18/IND/2023[201-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2012-13 Mapaex Remedies Acit, Pvt.Ltd., 2(1), बनाम/ E-7, Hig 500, Bhopal Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaecm2274P Assessee By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Shri Gagan Tiwari, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.09.2023

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250(6)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

Shivam Wellness Private Limited, Surat vs. ADIT-CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal No

ITA 493/SRT/2023[A.Y 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.492 & 493/Srt/2023 (Ays 2020-21 & 2021-22) (Hearing In Physical Court) Shivam Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Adit-Cpc, Bangalore Clinic, Hg-1, I.T.C. Building, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha, Vs Majura Gate, Ring Road, No.48/1, 48/2, Surat-395 001 Beratengaagrahara, Housr [Pan Abbcs 3673 G] Road, Uttarahalli Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560100 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 254(1)

316/Srt/2022 (AY 2020-21), wherein Form-10 IC was not filed before filing return of income, though, filed at the time of first appeal, restored the similar issue to the file of assessing officer to allow relief to the assessee. 9. The ld AR for the assessee further submits that

Shivam Wellness Private Limited, Surat vs. ADIT-CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal No

ITA 492/SRT/2023[A.Y 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2023

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 254(1)

Maqtro Pictures, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 2(4), Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 999/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sri.P.M.Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR

Section 250(6)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 68

violation of s. 269SS of the Act, attracting penalty u/s.271D, penalty proceedings there-under were initiated, and the penalty levied and confirmed in first appeal. Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal. Maqtro Pictures v. ITO 3. The assessee’s only explanation before us, as indeed at the earlier stages ... hearing, i.e., in terms of a ‘reasonable cause’, has been made out at any stage. Though we observe the assessee to have stated in first appeal that money was brought in by MPPL for urgent business needs of the firm, the same has not been substantiated at all, proving

Aastha Creations, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 20(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2175/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleaastha Creations V. Income Tax Officer – 20(1)(1) Unit No. 102, M-Block Room No. 124, 1St Floor Ranjit Studio Compound Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Dadasaheb Phalke Road Parel - 400012 Dadar (E), Mumbai - 400014 Pan: Aamfa1927A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 253(5)Section 44ASection 69C

disallowed u/s 69C 4) On receipt of assessment order the assessee firm being aggrieved with addition made went in appeal and filed First Appeal before CIT(A)-32, Mumbai. This appeal filed was disposed of dismissing the appeal vide Appellate order dated 20.02.2023 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals

Khilla Coloniers P Ltd, Bhopalc/O0 vs. The ACIT-Circle2(1), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 70/IND/2023[20125-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 Khilla Colonizers P.Ltd., Acit, बनाम/ Bhopal Circle 2(1), Bhopal Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aadck7900R Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Cas Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2023

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250(6)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

Shri Rameshwer Patidar, Dhar vs. The ITO, Dhar

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 191/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Rameshwar Patidar, Ito, बनाम/ 2/4, Patel Marg, Dhar Kukshi (Dhar) Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aowpp9869C Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2023

Section 144Section 250(6)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

Noorul Hasan Baig, 2013-14 vs. The ACIT 3(1), Bhopal

ITA 153/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 Noorul Hasan Baig, A.C.I.T., E-78, Koh-E-Fiza, 5(1), बनाम/ Bairagarh Road, Bhopal. Vs. Bhopal. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Afmpb1286N Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2023

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

HDFC Bank (+) Rs. 4,00,000/- on 19.01.2013 in Axis Bank made by assessee, treating the same as unexplained. The assessee carried matter in first appeal to CIT(A) through appeal No. CIT(A)- 2/BPL/IT-328/15-16 filed on 17.03.2016. While the first appeal was pending, the PCIT-2, Bhopal, passed revision ... terming the same as erroneous-cum-prejudicial to the interest of revenue and directing the AO to frame de novo assessment. When the first-appeal Page 2 of 10 Noorul Hasan Baig, Bhopal vs. ACIT 5(1), Bhopal Assessment year 2013-14 came up for hearing, the assessee submitted

Atiq Ahmad, Bhopal vs. The4 ITO 5(3), Bhopal

ITA 152/IND/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2009-10 Atiq Ahmad, Income-Tax Officer, 4/5, E Block, Ward 5(3), बनाम/ Ashoka Garden, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Adgpa3390N Assessee By Shri S. S. Deshpande, C. A. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 20.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.09.2023

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

other of Rs. 4,00,000/-, in respect of unexplained investments in purchase of two agricultural lands. The assessee carried the matter in first appeal but did not make any response to the notices of hearing issued by the CIT(A). Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) decided the first appeal ... findings made by the AO in assessment-order and dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee. This way, the assessee could not succeed in first appeal. Now the assessee has come in next appeal before us. 4. The assessee is aggrieved by the addition

ACIT, Circle, Bhilwara vs. M/S. Plaza Tex (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bhilwara

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 447/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

noted that Ld. CIT(A) has arrived at a conclusion merely on the basis of written submission made in the course of first appeal before him without any verification and examination of the facts claimed by the assessee. There is nothing in the order of Ld. CIT(A) from where

Justice Mohan Lal Varma (Retd.), New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-63(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1010/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Anand, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

produced etc. The Assessing Officer further added Rs.4,49,713/- being the amount received from third party to the returned income. 9. In the first appeal, the CIT(A) validated the stand of the assessee that such transactions of surrender of allotment in favour of the third party resulted

Ghanshyam Gupta, 8, Dashera Kothi, Govind Nagar, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 5 (1) Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 246/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Suhani Maharwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 133Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

total income of the assessee.Thus according to the AO, total income assessed is taxable @60% u/s 115BBE of the Act. 2.2 In first appeal, the ld. CIT (A) sustained the addition of Rs.23,58,500/- by observing as under:- ‘’7.3 Ground of Appeal No. 2-Addition ... same to the total income of the assessee and total income of assessee is taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act @ 60% which in first appeal the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of Rs.23,58,500/-. It is noted that the assessee before the AO explained the source

Sh. Mahendra Singh, Flat No.303, Ashapura Tower, Paota, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/JODH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaishri Mahendra Singh Vs Theacit Flat No. 303, Ashapura Tower Circle-3 Paota, Jodhpur Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Csdps 5573B

Section 2Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

which is worked out at Rs.1,18,90,400/-. This amount was disallowed by the AO out of the interest expenditure claimed. 2.2 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO by holding at para 6.6 of his order as under

Jagat Singh Rathore, Tonk vs. ITO WD 7(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 139/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CITa

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

undisclosed income vide impugned Assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 19.12.2016. 5 JAGAT SINGH RATHORE VS ITO, WARD 7 (2), JAIPUR 3.2 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the additions vide order u/s 250 dated 31.01.2023 holding as under: “ 7. Decision: - I have Considered the submission

Ranjeet Sharma, Rawatsar vs. ITO, Ward Nohar, Hanumangarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 580/JODH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur15 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Section 148Section 68

djnkrk dh vk; ekurs gq,] djnkrk dh dj;ksX; vk; esa tksM+h tkrh gSA In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under:- ….An assessee can discharge his onus of proof by proving three things: Identity of the creditor, capacity

Shri Mukeshbhai Kishorbhai Lakhani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3)(3), Surat

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 413/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Surat15 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Mukeshbhai Kishorbhai Lakhani, I.T.O., 89, Aashirwad Row House, Near Ward-3(3)(3), Vs. Sarthana Jakat Naka, Surat. Varachha Road, Surat-395006 (Gujarat) Pan No. Abppl 9388 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

quantum assessment, the Assessing Officer made addition of entire credit/cash credit in the alleged undisclosed bank account. The addition was sustained in first appeal. However, on second appeal before the Tribunal, the addition in the quantum assessment was restricted to 5% of the credit entry in the bank account. Thus