“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

Coronet Hotel Services & Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-6(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4613/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ld. CA &For Respondent: Shri Shankar Lal Verma

Section 142(1)Section 250

depreciation amounting to Rs. 51,36,730/- on account of set off of the unabsorbed depreciation carry forward from earlier years, preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. 4. The Ld. Commissioner by relying upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Sultan Brothers

Arya Samaj, Bhopal vs. The Dy.CIT Exemption, Bhopal/NFAC Delhi, Bhopal

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 189/IND/2022[22018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jun 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Arya Samaj, Dy.Cit{Exemption Ward}, बनाम/ 1, D Sector, Piplani, Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaata5700B Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, C. A. & Shri N. D.Patwa, Adv Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2023

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 270A

total income of Rs. 57,29,219/- and also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal whereupon the Ld. CIT(A) recorded submissions of assessee and concluded thus:- “6.3 In support of his case, the appellant has stated that ... Income & Exp. A/c filed to AO (copies placed at Page No. 81 and 82 of Paper-Book). Referring to the order of first-appeal, Ld. AR submitted that this human error was also brought to the notice of Ld. CIT(A) during first appeal

Ritu Mishra, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle 54(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6831/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. T. M. Shiva Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 24Section 250Section 250(6)Section 40

Gross Profit by rejecting books of accounts - Rs.2,59,27,998/- c. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - Rs.98,21,762/- 3. In the first appeal filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-35, New Delhi, the assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the impugned assessment order

Ritu Mishra, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle 54(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6830/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. T. M. Shiva Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR

Section 140ASection 140A(3)Section 220(2)Section 221(1)Section 234BSection 234C

amount of arrears and amount of interest payable u/s 220(2) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the said penalty order, the assessee filed first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 28.04.2017 along with application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The grounds raised before ... cause within the meaning of proviso to section 221(1) of the Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) condoned the delay in filing the first appeal. However, Ld. CIT(A) did not agree with the assessee’s plea and confirmed the order of the AO. The appeal thus came

Ritu Mishra, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle 54(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6829/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. T. M. Shiva Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 24Section 250Section 250(6)Section 40

ACIT Circle 54(1), New Delhi vs. Ritu Mishra, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6042/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. T. M. Shiva Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 24Section 250Section 250(6)Section 40

Shri Suresh George, Alappuzha vs. The ADIT International Taxation, Thiruvananthapuram-3, Thiruvanathapuram

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

ITA 794/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Jun 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkeysuresh George Asstt. Director Of Income Tax Kurichyiel House International Taxation Payippad, Harippad Vs. Thiruvananthapuram Alappuzha 690 556 [Pan:Affpg5853B]

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Verma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194JSection 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

benefit under the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The receipt of Rs.76.46 lakhs was accordingly brought to tax. The same found confirmation in first appeal inasmuch as that the assessee had failed to establish either the situs of the service rendered or of the same having not accrued or arisen

ACIT, Circle- 21(1), New Delhi vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3536/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 33Section 33(5)Section 33(7)Section 34Section 37(1)Section 5

assessment, the loss returned by the assessee was brought down to Rs.17,64,74,160/- by making certain additions and disallowances. 4. In the first appeal, the CIT(A) has granted relief on the issues raised before him. The Revenue is in appeal against the aforesaid order

DCIT, Central Circle, Meerut vs. Gbs Education Trust, Meerut

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 7551/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 13Section 143(3)

after taking into consideration the fact that for the A.Y. 2011-12, the assessee was given relief at the stage of first appeal, the addition was deleted and Revenue is in appeal against such deletion. 4. As a matter of fact the Revenue came before Tribunal in appeal vide

Surjan Singh Meena, Jaipur vs. JCIT, Range-6, Jaipur

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

ITA 92/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Lalwani, ProxyFor Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 147Section 269SSection 271DSection 272A(1)

equal to the amount of cash loan accepted by the assessee was levied upon the assessee u/s 271D of the Act. 2.3 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine for the reason that the assessee did not appear before

Amba Tech Engineering, Bhiwadi vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)ADIT - CPC, Alwar

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

ITA 49/JPR/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2019-2020

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(iv)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 234ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 438

deposited by the assessee after the due date as stipulated under the respective Acts but before filing of the Income Tax Return 2.2 In first appeal, the after considering the amendment made by Finance Act, 2021 and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services

Rt Vision Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 20(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 274/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80Section 80I

prescribed Form No.10CCB towards claim of deduction under Section 80IC has not been filed along with return of income. The CIT(A) in first appeal confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer towards disallowance of deduction on the ground that Form No.10CCB was filed however the due date of filing

Rajveer Singh, Meerut vs. DCIT Central Circle Gzbd, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 44A

additions were made on estimated basis based on the appreciation of the existing material and documentary evidence. 5. The CIT(A) in the first appeal has confirmed the aforesaid action of the Assessing Officer towards such estimation of profits in Section 153A assessment. The ld. counsel before us contends

Bhalla Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 4(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 4222/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2012-13 Bhalla Chemical Works P. Ltd., The Dcit,Circle 4(2), New Delhi M-237, Greater Kailash-Ii, New Delhi 110048 Vs. Pan Aaacb 4077 D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Rajat Jain, Ca Shri Ashish Mendiratta, Ar For Revenue : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2023 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, A.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-2, New Delhi Dated 28.02.2017 For Ay 2012-13. 2. When The Matter Was Called For Hearing The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Submitted At The Outset The He Seeks To Press Only Ground No. 3, Ground No. 4 & Ground No. 6 Of The Grounds Of Appeal & Other Grounds Raised In The Appeal Memo May Be Treated As Withdrawn. 3. In The Light Of Submission Made, Remaining Other Grounds Are Dismissed & Remaining Grounds Are Adjudicated Here Under:- 3. Addition On Account Of Car Expenses.

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR

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

such car expenses including depreciation thereon. The aforesaid action of the estimated disallowance has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in the first appeal. 3.1 In this regard the assessee contends that the estimation has been made solely on the basis of observation in the tax audit report without

Marriott International Inc., Mumbai vs. Dy, CIT (International Tax) 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1784/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1784/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व.2010-11) Marriott International Inc C/O.Marriott Hotels India Private Limited 303A, 304, Fulcrum, B Wing, Hiranandani Business Park, Sahar Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai 400 099 Pan: Aaecm-8040-K ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Tax)-3(2)(1), Mumbai, 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point,Mumbai 400 007. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Paras Savla & Pratik Poddar ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 31/05/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/06/2023

For Appellant: S/Shri Paras Savla & Pratik PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 144C

assessment order on 31/12/2019. The said assessment order was again passed by the Assessing Officer without passing draft assessment order. The assessee filed first appeal before the CIT(A) assailing the findings of Assessing Officer on merits. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee vide order dated 05/05/2022

Sentinel Consultants P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-22(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8/DEL/2023[23019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2023

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43BSection 44A

were carried out the CPC- Bengluru 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

Sentinel Consultants P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-22(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43BSection 44A

Shashank Mittal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 19, New Delhi

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

ITA 6343/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Delhi08 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2009-10 Shashank Mittal, The Dcit, Central Circle-19, New Delhi C-3/28-29, Sector-15, Rohini, New Delhi Vs. Pan Avopm 9684 P (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None Revenue For : Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-27, New Delhi Dated 14.12.2016 For Ay 2009-10. 2. When The Appeal Was Called For Hearing Neither The Assessee Nor Any Authorized Representative Appeared Nor Any Adjournment Application Has Been Filed Despite Several Notices. However, Or Perusal Of The Appeal Records & Impugned Order, We Find That The Appeal Can Be Disposed Of Ex-Parte Qua Assessee After Hearing The Arguments Of Ld. Senior Dr. Therefore We Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeal Ex-Parte Qua Assessee.

For Appellant: None

Section 250Section 6

From ground no. 1 of assessee as per Form no. 36 it has been alleged that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the first appeal simply on account of non prosecution by the appellant without appreciating that the Hon’ble Bombay High in the case of CIT Central, Nagpur ... file of ld. CIT(A) to the first appellate stage with the direction that the learned First Appellate Authority would adjudicate the first appeal after allowing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee and without being influence with the earlier order. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Mohammad Saleem, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 63(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 28/DEL/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri Fareed Ahmed, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 147

mail due to miser means and lack of knowledge. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee came to know about the dismissal of first appeal on receipt of penalty notice received on 18.10.2022 and the assessee filed appeal on 03.01.2023 by the delay of 191 days which may kindly

Svp Industries Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT (TDS), Gautam Budh Nagar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2720/DEL/2022[2020-21 (Form 27EQ/Q4)]Status: HeardITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Akhil Goyal, CA

Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 250(6)Section 3(1)(b)

appellate order in all eight appeals are set aside and the appeals are restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudication of first appeal afresh without being influenced from the earlier orders and after allowing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is also directed