“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

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

ITA 106/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

Mafatlal Harakchandji Bothra, Mumbai vs. I.T.O.-19(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1002/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemaftlal Harkchandji Ito – 19(2)(3) Bothrac/O. D.C 2Nd Floor, बनाम/ Bothra & Co. Llp (Cp) Matru Mandir, Vs. (Formerly Known As Tardeo Road, D.C Bothra & Co), Mumbai-400007. 297, Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion, Opp Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400004. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aggpb3538C (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Mr. Rajkumar Singh.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

value of 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

Late Sh. Shekhar Dhariwal Through L/H Smt. Nikita Dhariwal, Dhariwal Bhawan, Shastri Market, Kota vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Kota

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

ITA 51/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl.CIT

Section 147Section 148

THRU: L/H SMT NIKITA DHARIWAL VS ITO, WARD-2(2), KOTA notices and thus the AO made addition of Rs. 25 lacs which in first appeal has been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). The Bench noted that the assessee failed to comply with the notices which indicates that

Manish Kumar Girdharilal Lath, Burhanpur vs. The ACIT 4 (1), Burhanpur

ITA 87/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: PendingITAT Indore01 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Manish Kumar A.C.I.T.,4(1), Girdhari Lal Lath, Indore बनाम/ New T.I.T.Road, Vs. Burhanpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aampl8724A Assesseeby Shri S.S.Deshpande, C.A.& Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.06.2023

Section 143(3)Section 254

disallowance of Rs. 5,22,614/- in respect of payments said to have been made through credit card. The assessee contested this disallowance in first appeal but the Ld. CIT(A) did not grant any relief vide order dated 12.07.2017. The assessee then carried the matter in further appeal

M/S. Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sahakari Bank Maryadit, Bhopal vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

ITA 67/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. M.P. Rajya Sahakari Acit-1(1), Bank Maryadit, Bhopal बनाम/ Head Office, New Market, Tt Nagar, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan:Aaaam1625N Assesseeby None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.06.2023

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

this appeal. 2. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of assessee. On perusal of case file, it is found that the first-appeal was dismissed by CIT(A) for non-prosecution by assessee. Therefore, the present appeal can be heard Page 1 of 3 M.P.RajyaSahkari Bank Maryadit

Karnataka Sangha, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption)-1(4) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 519/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.519/मुं/ 2023 ("न.व.2013-14) Karnataka Sangha, Dr. Vishveshwarya Smarak Mandir, Csm Marg, Off. T.H.Kataria Marg, Matunga Road (West), Mumbai – 400 016. Pan: Aaatk-3204-A ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito (Exemption)-1(4), Prathistha Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai- 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Shambhu Yadav सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/05/2023

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav

Section 143(3)

vide order dated 23/01/2018. The second order in same appeal 3 has been passed inadvertently. The confusion occurred for the reason that the first appeal was decided in physical mode, subsequently, Faceless System was introduced for deciding the appeals and the second order in the case of assessee for Assessment

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Amrit Sales Promotion Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1916/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1916/Mum/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit, Cen. Cir. 3(1), M/S Amrit Sales Promotion R. No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ India Building, Nariman Point, 20, Floor 10, 3 Navjivan Comm. Mumbai-400 021. Prem. Co-Operative Soc., Dr. D. Vs. B. Marg, Lamington Road, Mumbai-400 008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aacca3220D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Appellant By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Ld. Dr Respondent By : Shri Karan Jain, Ld. Ar Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per N. K. Choudhry: The Revenue Department/Appellant Herein Has Preferred This Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.05.2022 Impugned Herein, Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-51, Mumbai {In Short ‘Ld. Commissioner’} U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For Ay 2011-12. 2

For Appellant: Smt. Shailja Rai, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Karan Jain, Ld. AR

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

Amrit Sales Promotion Pvt. Ltd. 3. The Assessee being aggrieved with the assessment order and making of the addition by the AO preferred first appeal before Ld. Commissioner and challenged the applicability of the provisions of section 68 r.w.s 153C of the Act and the addition on merit as well

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai vs. Keystone Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1808/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1807/मुं/ 2022 एवं 1808/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व.2016-17 एवं 2017-18)

For Appellant: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Naresh Kumar

Section 23Section 36(1)(iii)

expenditure to the tune of Rs.47,91,39,620/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.11,68,78,927/- from the total claim of assessee. In first appeal, the CIT(A) allowed the claim of assessee in full. We find that in Assessment Year 2013-14 for identical reason the Assessing Officer

Dy CIT CC 2(4), Mumbai vs. Keystone Realtors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1807/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1807/मुं/ 2022 एवं 1808/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व.2016-17 एवं 2017-18)

For Appellant: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Naresh Kumar

Section 23Section 36(1)(iii)

Ahmednagar Investments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7126/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanvk-Vk-La- 7125@Eaqcbz@2018 ¼Fu-Oa- 2013&14½ Vk-Vk-La- 7126@Eaqcbz@2018 ¼Fu-Oa- 2014&15½ M/S Ahmednagar Investments Pvt. Ltd. 11/12, Raghuvanshi Mill Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai-400 013 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aadca9872E Cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle– 5(3) Room No.1906, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 021

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal izfroknh }kjk@For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam, CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154

first hearing of appeal, the AO vide another order u/s 154 of the Act granted relief to the assessee as was sought in first appeal. The assessee vide application dated 02.04.2018 made a request to the CIT(A) to withdraw the appeal. The CIT(A) did not accord permission

Ahmednagar Investments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7125/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal izfroknh }kjk@For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam, CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154

Akar Auto Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 502/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short ‘EPF Act’). 3. The Appellant being aggrieved challenged the said addition before the Ld. Commissioner by filling first appeal, but could not succeeded as Ld. Commissioner affirmed the addition under consideration, by thoroughly considering the relevant provisions of the Act as applicable

Capacite Engineering Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT-A-47, Mumbai

In the result the appeal I

ITA 2358/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm 1. I.T.A. No. 2358/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. I.T.A. No. 2359/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Prakash Rastogi

Section 132Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 40A(2)(a)

provisions of section 40A(2)(a) of the Act. 3. The assessee being aggrieved challenged the said additions before the Ld. Commissioner in the first appeal. The Ld. Commissioner though deleted the disallowance of Rs. 4,87,674/- qua late deposit of employee’s contribution to PF account, however, affirmed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Ferozepur vs. Measage Sukhbir Agro Energy Limited, Ferozepur

In the result, the appeal ITA No

ITA 406/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 139(9)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 249(4)Section 250(6)Section 32Section 32(1)

appeal order U/s 250 is caused nullity which will be not maintainable before the bench. The Tribunal is without jurisdiction if the first appeal is not maintainable on account of non-payment of admitted tax. In terms of section 249(4)(a) of the Act, appeal against such order

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3, Ferozepur vs. Measage Sukhbir Agro Energy Limited, Ferozepur

In the result, the appeal ITA No

ITA 405/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 139(9)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 249(4)Section 250(6)Section 32Section 32(1)

Fakhri Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.Ustee Company Ltd As Trustee for Fccb Issued by Jindal Saw Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Delhi

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

ITA 785/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryfakhri Co-Operative Versus Commissioner Of Housing Society Ltd. Income Tax 422, Matharpakhadi Road, (Appeals) Mazgaon, Nfac, Delhi. Maharashtra-400010. Pan: Aaaaf1078N Appellant Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Murtaza Quresh Ghandiali & Ms. Sabeena Darukhanawal, Ar Respondent/Department By : Ms. Mini Vinod, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/05/2023 Order Narender Kumar Choudhry, J.M: This Assessee/Appellant Herein Has Preferred This Appeal Against The Order Dated 12.01.2023 Impugned Herein Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) / Nfac, Delhi {In Short ‘Ld. Commissioner’} U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For Ay 2013-14. Fakhri Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. 2. In This Case, The Appellant Earned Interest From Co- Operative & Other Banks & Therefore, Filed Its Return Of Income For The Ay 2013-14 On 22.08.2013 Which Was Processed By Cpc & Vide Intimation Dated 12.11.2014 Under Section 143(1) Of The Act, The Amounts Of Rs. 2,08,071/- & Rs. 50,000/- Have Not Been Considered Under Section 80P(2)(C)(Ii) & Consequently Disallowed.

For Appellant: Sh. Murtaza QureshFor Respondent: Ms. Mini Vinod, DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)(c)

discrepancy from CPC end”. 4. The assessee being aggrieved against the original rectification order dated 08.01.2015 passed under section 154 of the Act preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner on dated 22.09.2021. The Ld. Commissioner vide impugned order rejected the appeal of the Appellant in limine on the point ... observe that infact, instead of challenging immediately the initial/original rectification order dated 08.01.2015 passed under section 154 of the Act by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, the Appellant may be on bonafide belief or inadvertent advice continued with filling of grievances before CPC and once CPC passed last

ITO Ward - 1(2), Ghaziabad vs. Dhanwa Transport, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1454/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2015-16 Ito, Ward-1(2), Ghaziabad M/S Dhanwa Transport, Village Banthla, Loni, Ghaziabad, Up Vs. 201102 Pan Aajfd 6041 R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Khanna, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 6

such a situation if the matter/appeal is restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) to the first appellate stage for proper adjudication of first appeal as per requirement of sub section 6 of section 250 of the I.T Act 1961, then there would be no grievance to the assessee. Therefore ... first appellate order, we find it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication of first appeal after allowing due opportunity to the assessee and without being influenced with the earlier order. 5. Therefore, impugned first appellate order is set aside

Jaypee Infra Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-13(2), New Delhi

Accordingly these grounds in hand deserve to be allowed with a direction to the Ld

ITA 4582/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 4582/Del/2018 , A.Y. 2012-13 Jaypee Infra Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, (Erstwhile Known As Jaypee Infra Circle-13(2), Ventures) New Delhi (A Private Company With Unlimited Liability) Sector 128, Noida- 201304, Up Pan : Aaccj5628G Appellant Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

amount of investments on which no dividend was received during the year. Assessee also gave a justification to consider this re- computation at first appeal stage. Though no conclusive findings were given by the Ld. CIT(A). It is settled proposition of law that Section 14A r.w.r

DCIT, Circle-13(2), New Delhi vs. Jaypee Infra Ventures, Noida

Accordingly these grounds in hand deserve to be allowed with a direction to the Ld

ITA 4435/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2012-13

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Shri Hira Lal Kadlabju, Ghaziabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Jammu

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 28/ASR/2023[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 May 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.28/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2001-02

Section 143(3)Section 250oSection 69A

rely on the same and request for its applicability to provide relief in further appeal under the IT Act, this being only the first appeal.” 7.1 We find that the issue is not yet mature for determination of the ownership of the cash in both the assessee. The substantive assessment