← 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

Amit Makkar, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-34(4), Delhi

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

ITA 616/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Bharti Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69A

assessee under Section 69A r.w. Section 115BBE of the Act. The I.T.A No.616/Del/2023 2 assessee has further challenged the summary disposal of first appeal by the CIT(A) on account of non prosecution. 3. Ms. Bharti Sharma, the ld. counsel attended for the assessee pointed out that

Kings Infra Ventures Ltd, Thevara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1 (2), Kochi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 25/COCH/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Apr 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainkings Infra Ventures Ltd. Asstt. Commissioner Of A-1, 1St Floor, Atria Apartment Income Tax, Opp. Gurudwara Temple Vs. Circle - 1(2) Perumanur Road Kochi Thevara, Kochi [Pan:Aaccv3411D] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. Advocate Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

claim for UAD in full, i.e., including for AYs. 1996-97 and 1997-98, amounting to Rs.62.65 lakhs, which though stood allowed in first appeal, where at the matter was considered at length and dilated upon by the ld. CIT(A), to again find no basis – factual or legal

M/S Bec Infra Private Limited, Durg vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai

In the result ground no. 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 66/RPR/2020[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Raipur24 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.66/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Year: 2014-2015) M/S Bec Infra Private Limited, Vs Circle-3(1), Raipur 47, Motilal Nehru Nagar, Durg Pan No. :Aagcm 0049 N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nilesh Jain, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-Ii, Raipur, Dated 31.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Sr. Dr Submitted That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 59 Days, Which Can Be Further Extended Since The Claim Of The Assessee That The Order Was Served After 38 Days Of Delay Was Not Supported By Any Documentary Evidence. As Per Appeal Memo In Form No.36, The Date Of Service Of Communication Of The Order Was 7Th February, 2020 & The Appeal Was Filed On 08.06.2020. On This Aspect, The Ld. Ar Submitted That This Was The Covid-19 Period & The Hon’Ble Apex Court Has Already Directed To Extend The Limitation For That Period, Therefore, The Delay May Be Condoned. The Submission Of The Ld. Ar Found Satisfactory & Acceptable & Accordingly, The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 14A

reply filed on 19/12/2016 (para-9) qua the first item and made the disallowance on the basis of vague and unrelated observations. e) In first appeal Id. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal treating the assessment order as ex-parte order solely on the basis of statement of facts

Shri Pratap Nayak, Bhilai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(3), Bhilai

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

ITA 15/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

assessment order, however it was also the fact that the assessee was a persistent non-compliant during the assessment proceedings. At the stage of first appeal before the CIT(A), assessee through submissions and representation by AR’s which were further enlightened by Ld AO by CIT(A). In view

Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. M/S Manglam Build Developers Ltd, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 373/JPR/2022[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2023

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri James Kurian (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 133ASection 14A

have disclosed the amount of Rs.9,98,26,000/- had survey u/s 133A of the Act not been conducted by the department.’’ In first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) at Pg 5 to 10 of its order after considering the submission of assessee held that the cash flow statement shows ... read with Rule 8D(2) at Rs.1,03,23,424/- (Rs.94,83,848/- for interest and Rs.8,39,576/-for expenses). In first appeal, the ld CIT(A) has deleted the addition by holding as under:- ‘’(xv) Therefore, in view of the subsequent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court

M/S. Sums Exim Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 31/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri B.P. Mundra, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT

claim of such expenses which works out to Rs.1,25,782/- and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 3.2 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of Rs.1,25,782/- for the reason that nothing was submitted before him during the course ... made an addition of Rs.1,25,782/- for want of self made vouchers and most of the payments were made in cash. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO as none appeared on behalf of the assessee before him on the date of hearing

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Sums Exim Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result , ground no. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 860/JPR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri B.P. Mundra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 132(4)Section 153C

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR JhlanhixkslkbZ]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt

Income Tax Officer-10(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Janitor Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result additions as made by the Assessing Officer on this score are directed to be deleted

ITA 3040/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2023AY 2012-13
Section 137Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

enquiry etc was made as regards to credit given by that company Le. Delight Resort Pvt. Ltd. to appellant company. Further, In the first appeal itself by Appeal Order dated 01.06.20117 for AY 2012-13 by the then appellate commissioner Le. CIT(A)-3, Delhi all the additions were directed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Raipur vs. Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 142/RPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.139 To 142/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Years: 2009-2010 To 2012-2013) Acit (Exemption), Raipur Vs Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya, University Building, Lamti, Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur(M.P.) Pan No. :Aaajm 1070 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) & Cross Objection Nos.09 To 12/Rpr/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.139 To 142/Rpr/2019) (Assessment Year :2009-2010 To 2012-2013) Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vs Acit (Exemption), Raipur Vishwavidyalaya, University Building, Lamti, Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur(M.P.) Pan No. :Aaajm 1070 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Arun Grover & Asheesh Ternain, Cas नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(2)

That against the That Ld. Assessment Order dt. CIT(A)-1, 28.12.2018 assessee filed JabalpurAp First Appeal on 10.01.2019 peliate Order is before the Ld. CIT on record in the (Appeals)-1, Jabalpur which present has been adjudicated in department al favour of the assessee vide appeal and That thus ... grant of Section 12AA Registration. That the same benefit to which the assessee is entitled for retrospective year(s) has been allowed upon first appeal preferred by the assessee by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jabalpur. That assessee hereby supports the Order passed by Ld. CIT(A)-1, Jabalpur

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Raipur vs. Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 141/RPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.139 To 142/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Years: 2009-2010 To 2012-2013) Acit (Exemption), Raipur Vs Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya, University Building, Lamti, Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur(M.P.) Pan No. :Aaajm 1070 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) & Cross Objection Nos.09 To 12/Rpr/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.139 To 142/Rpr/2019) (Assessment Year :2009-2010 To 2012-2013) Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vs Acit (Exemption), Raipur Vishwavidyalaya, University Building, Lamti, Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur(M.P.) Pan No. :Aaajm 1070 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Arun Grover & Asheesh Ternain, Cas नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(2)

That against the That Ld. Assessment Order dt. CIT(A)-1, 28.12.2018 assessee filed JabalpurAp First Appeal on 10.01.2019 peliate Order is before the Ld. CIT on record in the (Appeals)-1, Jabalpur which present has been adjudicated in department al favour of the assessee vide appeal and That thus ... grant of Section 12AA Registration. That the same benefit to which the assessee is entitled for retrospective year(s) has been allowed upon first appeal preferred by the assessee by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jabalpur. That assessee hereby supports the Order passed by Ld. CIT(A)-1, Jabalpur

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Raipur vs. Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 140/RPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.139 To 142/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Years: 2009-2010 To 2012-2013) Acit (Exemption), Raipur Vs Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya, University Building, Lamti, Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur(M.P.) Pan No. :Aaajm 1070 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) & Cross Objection Nos.09 To 12/Rpr/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.139 To 142/Rpr/2019) (Assessment Year :2009-2010 To 2012-2013) Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vs Acit (Exemption), Raipur Vishwavidyalaya, University Building, Lamti, Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur(M.P.) Pan No. :Aaajm 1070 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Arun Grover & Asheesh Ternain, Cas नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(2)

That against the That Ld. Assessment Order dt. CIT(A)-1, 28.12.2018 assessee filed JabalpurAp First Appeal on 10.01.2019 peliate Order is before the Ld. CIT on record in the (Appeals)-1, Jabalpur which present has been adjudicated in department al favour of the assessee vide appeal and That thus ... grant of Section 12AA Registration. That the same benefit to which the assessee is entitled for retrospective year(s) has been allowed upon first appeal preferred by the assessee by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jabalpur. That assessee hereby supports the Order passed by Ld. CIT(A)-1, Jabalpur

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Raipur vs. Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 139/RPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.139 To 142/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Years: 2009-2010 To 2012-2013) Acit (Exemption), Raipur Vs Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya, University Building, Lamti, Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur(M.P.) Pan No. :Aaajm 1070 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) & Cross Objection Nos.09 To 12/Rpr/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.139 To 142/Rpr/2019) (Assessment Year :2009-2010 To 2012-2013) Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vs Acit (Exemption), Raipur Vishwavidyalaya, University Building, Lamti, Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur(M.P.) Pan No. :Aaajm 1070 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Arun Grover & Asheesh Ternain, Cas नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(2)

That against the That Ld. Assessment Order dt. CIT(A)-1, 28.12.2018 assessee filed JabalpurAp First Appeal on 10.01.2019 peliate Order is before the Ld. CIT on record in the (Appeals)-1, Jabalpur which present has been adjudicated in department al favour of the assessee vide appeal and That thus ... grant of Section 12AA Registration. That the same benefit to which the assessee is entitled for retrospective year(s) has been allowed upon first appeal preferred by the assessee by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jabalpur. That assessee hereby supports the Order passed by Ld. CIT(A)-1, Jabalpur

Kalpana Jhala, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD 5(4), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 414/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT)
Section 127Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

held that the assessee was ignorant of such a prohibition being the very first year and hence disallowance made, were deleted.” 9. In the first appeal the ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the imposition of penalty however, a bare look upon the impugned order vis. a vis. the written submission

Vishnu Pareek, Jaipur vs. CIT(A), Jaipur

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

ITA 292/JPR/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

NYPTTJ 546(Jd) (DPB 26-28) & 215TTJ 617 (Nag) (DPB 29-37) In view of the above facts, the delay occurred in filing of first appeal before the ld.CIT(A) may be condoned and he may kindly be directed to decide the appeal on merits

Pramod Modi, Dholpur (Raj.) vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4, Bharatpur

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

ITA 193/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 & Acted Only On Borrowed Satisfaction Which Is Not Permitted In Law. Therefore, The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Reopening The Assessment U/S 148 Deserves To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Sh. Jaideep Malik (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT)
Section 144Section 147Section 148

appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that though the assessment order was ex-party and that is why in the first appeal the assessee has submitted the relied upon the documents but the ld. CIT(A) has not admitted those records and rejected the explanation of the assessee about

Indrawati, Panipat vs. ITO Ward-2, Panipat

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

ITA 1426/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(1)Section 154

order of the CIT(A). 6. On perusal of the first appellate order, it is straightaway observed that the CIT(A) has dismissed the first appeal in limine on the ground that the appeal filed by the assessee before it is belated, i.e., 48 days delay without giving any reason ... taxable income was earned during the year under consideration and therefore, no mala fide can be imputed for small delay in filing first appeal by adopting hyper technical approach. A reference to the judgments in the case of Collector, I.T.As No.1425 & 1426/Del/2022 4 Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji

Indrawati, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward-2, Panipat

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

ITA 1425/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(1)Section 154

order of the CIT(A). 6. On perusal of the first appellate order, it is straightaway observed that the CIT(A) has dismissed the first appeal in limine on the ground that the appeal filed by the assessee before it is belated, i.e., 48 days delay without giving any reason ... taxable income was earned during the year under consideration and therefore, no mala fide can be imputed for small delay in filing first appeal by adopting hyper technical approach. A reference to the judgments in the case of Collector, I.T.As No.1425 & 1426/Del/2022 4 Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji

Kamal Kumar Godara, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(3), Faridabad

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

ITA 1459/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Alok Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

completed the re-assessment without meeting the requirement of disposing of the objection and intimation thereto to the assessee. The CIT(A) in the first appeal has also ignored the contentions of the assessee in this regard. It was thus contended that as a consequence of non disposal

Kamal Kumar Godara, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(3), Faridabad

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

ITA 1458/DEL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Alok Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

completed the re-assessment without meeting the requirement of disposing of the objection and intimation thereto to the assessee. The CIT(A) in the first appeal has also ignored the contentions of the assessee in this regard. It was thus contended that as a consequence of non disposal

Shri Kailash Singh, Bhopal vs. The DCIT/ACIT 1 (1), Bhopal

ITA 413/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kailash Singh Dcit/Acit 1(1) F.No.513, Bhopal बनाम/ Bhagwan Parisar Hoshangabad Road, Vs. Misroad, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Ahips 0796 G Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2023

Section 143(3)

carried us to Para No. 5 of the order of Ld. CIT(A) and ‘submitted that all notices of hearing of first-appeal were issued to the mail kailashsingh2504@yahoo.com of assessee. But those notices could not come to the knowledge of assessee since the assessee is not accessing the impugned ... mail id even in the said Form No. 36 for the very same reason. Ld. AR submits that since the notices of hearing of first appeal were not received, the assessee could not attend the hearing, which has led to the passing of ex-parte order