← All Phrases

“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
87
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
59
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
55
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
40
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
32
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
30
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
28
citing judgments

An assessee can make a claim of deduction for the first time before the appellate authorities.

Judgments citing first appeal

Jindal Rail Infrastructure Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-13(2), Delhi

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

ITA 1448/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 250(6)

grounds of unverifiable expenses by a very brief and cryptic order alleging part replies filed by the assessee. It is noticed that in the first appeal, the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of non compliance. It is further noticed that a compliance period

Ritesh Patel, Indore vs. The ITO 1(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 151/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Ritesh Patel, Ito, 1, Kadwali Bujurg, 1(1), बनाम/ Sanwer, Indore. Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Bcnpp9475N Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Revenue By None Date Of Hearing 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.09.2023

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

assessee carried us to the impugned order and submitted that the said order was passed by CIT(A) ex-parte qua assessee whereby the first-appeal had been dismissed for non-prosecution but the CIT(A) has not made any adjudication as required by section 250(6). Therefore

Shri Vijay Kumar, Garhshankar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Hosiarpur

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

ITA 27/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 69A

Government of Punjab dated 10thApril 2023. The relevant para of the same reads as under: “(iii) Aggrieved, the assessee was advised to file first appeal. Since it was the first ever occasion for assessee to go in appeal, he was referred by someone to a Jalanahdar based counsel ... Bhogal. Advocate, who preferred the first appeal. The said counsel was apprised of all facts and also provided with relevant documents, for filing of appeal and also in support of assessee’s contention that all the deposits in bank represented sale proceeds of mobile recharge and other connected services. However

The Dhamai Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Limited, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Hoshiarpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 238/ASR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Sept 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.238/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

parte order in appeal, when admittedly the assessee's earlier appeal for AY 2007-08, on the same issue was still pending in first appeal. 3. That in any case, the interest earned from investment with cooperative bank, intrinsically being a cooperative society, was eligible for deduction u/s.80P

ACIT, Central Circle, Panaji vs. Shri Ajit Mittal, Panaji

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 70/PAN/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.69 & 70/Pan/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 153A

Both the sides are in agreement that the facts and circumstances of the addition made for the A.Y. 2016-17 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

ACIT, Central Circle, Panaji vs. Shri Ajit Mittal, Panaji

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 69/PAN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.69 & 70/Pan/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 153A

Both the sides are in agreement that the facts and circumstances of the addition made for the A.Y. 2016-17 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

7 Horses Hospitality LLP, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 332/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar GuptaFor Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CITa
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

noted that the CPC made an addition of Rs.2,53,000/- on account of delay in deposit of employees PF/ ESI contributions. 2.2 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO as to the disallowance of Employees Contribution towards PF/ESI amounting to Rs.2

Shri Radheshyam Patel, Indore vs. The ITO- 2(3), Indore

ITA 206/IND/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Radheshyam Patel, Ito, Prop. Of M/S. Geetanjali Ward 2(3), बनाम/ & Cold Storage, Indore Bicholi Mardana, Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abppp3172N Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, C.A. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2023

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

after making certain disallowances/additions (including an addition of Rs. 46,29,675/- u/s 68 being contested in present-appeal). The assessee carried matter in first appeal but did not get any success. The assessee filed next appeal to ITAT, Indore registered as I.T.A. No. 206/Ind/2013. The ITAT Indore, vide order ... which the creditors themselves filed replies to AO and accepted having given loans to assessee. Furthermore, the assessee also filed Affidavits of Creditors during first-appeal to CIT(A) but the CIT(A) has not admitted those affidavits. Ld. AR submitted that since the creditors are agriculturists

Subhash Chand Saini, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward, Behror

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 230/JPR/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Sept 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Garg (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271BSection 275Section 44A

beyond which penalty cannot be imposed but there is no bar in completing the penalty proceedings u/s 271B of the Act during pendency of first appeal. However, it has been found that on request of the appellant that the penalty proceedings should be kept in abeyance till the decision

M/S Janiyyathul Mustharshideen Charitable Trust, Malappuram vs. ITO Ward 1, Tirur

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

ITA 980/COCH/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Janiyyathul Mustharshideen The Income Tax Officer Charitable Trust Ward -1, Tirur Edayoor Post Vs. Malappuram 676554 [Pan:Aaatj6491Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shameem Ahmed, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.09.2023 O R D E R Persanjay Arora, Am This Appeal By The Assessee Agitating The In Limine Dismissal Of It’S Appeal Vide Order Dated 31.10.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department [Cit(A)], Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 28.03.2013 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Leading To The Instant Appeal Are That The Assessee, A Public Charitable Trust Constituted Under The Trust Deed Dated 28.06.1999 & Registered U/S.12Aa Of The Act W.E.F. 20.10.2005, Returned It’S Income For The Relevant Year (On 29.06.2010) At Nil Income, Claiming Exemption U/S.11 Of The Act On The Voluntary Contributions Received During The Year, I.E., Rs.12.18 Lakhs. The Same Was Denied By The Assessing Officer (Ao) As The Assessee Had, Subsequent To Its Registration Under Section 12Aa Of The Act On 20.10.2005, I.E., On 21/10/2005, Totally Amended It’S Object Clause, Which Rather Was Required To Be Ratified By The Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shameem Ahmed, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 192Section 250(6)

object clause is, fully or partly, not charitable in nature, qua which again there is no finding. In fact, Grounds 3 & 4 of the first appeal specifically state that there was no amendment in the object clause of the trust deed and it was only on the procedural aspects

M/S.Zenith Cement and Steels, Kozhikkode vs. The ITO, Calicut

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

ITA 956/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sri.A.P.Vinod Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

behalf of the assessee, it was submitted by Sri.Vinod Kumar, it’s learned counsel, that the only addition made in assessment, since confirmed in first appeal, is qua unexplained cash deposit by the assessee in it’s bank account by the assessee, at Rs.10.13 lac, i.e., out of the total

M/S Chempaka Kindergarten Pvt. Ltd., Trivandrum vs. The CIT (Appeals), Circle 1(1), Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 791/COCH/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Sept 2023AY 2019-2020

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

For Appellant: Smt.Telma Raju, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 154Section 2(24)(x)

only issue in the instant appeal is the disallowance effected u/s. 2(24)(x) r/ws. 36(1)(va), vide order u/s.154, since confirmed in first appeal. The primary facts are not in dispute. The payment of the employees’ contribution to the employees’ welfare fund, i.e., EPF and ESI, stands made

DCIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi vs. Jyotsna Suri, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2840/DEL/2022[2020-221]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023AY 2020-221

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M.BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri U.N Marwah, CA
Section 69A

note that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 56,78,510/- on account of watches found and seized during the search operation. In first appeal the ld. CIT(A) upheld addition of Rs. 48,48,660/- and deleted other part of addition of Rs. 8,29,850/- pertaining

Shri Ved Prakash Sharma, Mandideep vs. The ITO, Raisen

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 109/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2015-16 Ved Prakash Sharma, Ito, 23-24, Micaply, Raisen बनाम/ Industrial Area, Mandideep, Vs. Distt. Raisen (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Acrps2997R Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05.09.2023

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

Smt Narayan Sundra Bai, Indore vs. ITO 2 (5), Indore

ITA 386/IND/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Narayan Sundra Bai, Ito, 29, Maa Vihar Colony, 2(5), बनाम/ A.B.Road, Indore. Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Alzpb1024B Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05.09.2023

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

sale consideration (+) estimated cost of Rs. 1,26,390/- incurred by assessee for arranging bogus capital gain. Being aggrieved, the assessee went in first appeal but could not succeed. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us assailing the orders of lower-authorities. 4. Ground

Jagdish Manilal Desai, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 462/SRT/2023[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Surat05 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.462/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Virtual Hearing) Jagdish Manilal Desai (Huf), Vs. The Ito, Prop. Hemal Gems, 104, 3Rd Ward – 1(3)(2), Floor, Keshav Jyot Apartment, Surat Lal Bunglow, Athwalines, Surat – 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabhj3074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)

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

Narayan Singh Nayak, Jhabua vs. The ITO 2, Ratlam

ITA 42/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Narayan Singh Nayak, Ito-2, बनाम/ 1, Ranu Colony, Ratlam Jhabua Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abapn9853D Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh & Shri Parth Jhavar, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 04.09.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 263

Ratlam [“Ratlam ITO or AO”] wherein he made certain new additions. Aggrieved by this newer assessment order, the assessee went in first appeal to CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has noted, in Para No. 3 and 3.1 of appeal-order, that the notices of hearing were served upon assessee

Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(4), Nagpur vs. Shri Prenish Umakant Pachabhaiye, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 301/NAG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.301/Nag/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Income Tax Shri Prenish Umakant Officer, Vs Pachabhaiye, Ward-1(4), Nagpur. Plot No.185, Shastri Layout, Saikrupa Apartment, Khamla, Nagpur – 440025. Pan: Anjpp 4784 G Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Dilip Lohiya – Ar Revenue By Shri Kailash Kanojiya – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01/09/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)-1, Nagpur Dated 18.07.2019 For A.Y.2010-11 Emanating From Assessment Order Passed By The Ito, Ward-25(3)(2), Mumbai Dated 30.06.2017 Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Shri Prenish Umakant Pachabhaiye [R]

Section 127Section 147

Commissioner of Income-tax on 12.8.2011 w.e.f. 23.8.2011, which was passed after passing the assessment order and even after filing of the first appeal. Therefore, the Delhi Benches of the Tribunal have the jurisdiction over the assessee to hear the appeals and not the Lucknow Benches of the Tribunal. Therefore

Neworder Exports Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-5(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1821/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 250

made the additions of Rs.39,39,900/- on account of gross profit and Rs.51,654/- as unexplained cash credit, against which the Assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. Commissioner, who though issued three notices to the Assessee at the e-mail address provided by the Assessee in Form No.35

Ramesh Siyaram Jaiswal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Palghar

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

ITA 1610/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Bharat BhandariFor Respondent: Shri. Anurag Tripathi
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

Assessee by making addition of Rs. 42,82,480/- as unexplained money u/s 69 of the Act. 3. The Assessee being aggrieved preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who by impugned order dismissed the appeal of the Assessee against which the Assessee is an appeal before Tribunal. I observe