“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

Deepak Kumar Agarwal, Hathras vs. I.T.O Ward 4(3)(4), Hathras

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 492/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

Rs.2,69,43,404/-, vide assessment order date 26.09.2022 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before the learned CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal, inasmuch as, the addition made towards bogus purchases from M/s. R.G. Enterprises amounting to Rs.2

Mohit Nandan Agarwal, Aligarh vs. ITO, Ward 4(1)(3), Aligarh

In the result, assessee’s appeal, ITA No

ITA 484/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhwith Sa No. 03 &04/Agr/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2018-19, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was a non-filer for the assessment year ... assessed assessee’s total income at Rs.13,73,83,889/-. 3. Learned CIT(A) also confirmed the assessment order by dismissing the assessee’s first appeal ex parte. 4. Assessee has filed this second appeal on the ground, in addition to others, that the learned CIT(A) has passed

Dinesh Chand Kaushik, Aligarh vs. ITO, Delhi

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

ITA 469/AGR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 41(1)

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2021-22, wherein learned CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal, confirming the penalty imposed by Assessing Officer u/s. 270A of the Act, vide penalty order dated 26.06.2023. 2. Brief facts are that the assessment ... amount of tax payable on the aforesaid two additions, vide penalty order dated 26.06.2023. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before learned CIT(A), who confirmed the penalty and dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 4. This second appeal has been preferred on the ground that the learned

Tahir Khan, Jhansi vs. Income Tax Officer-2(3)(1), Jhansi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 468/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 56(2)(vii)

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2014-15, wherein learned CIT(A)has dismissed assessee first appeal, confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, vide penalty order dated 16.03.2019. 2. Brief facts ... Tribunal, vide order dated 11.09.2019, remitted the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for decision afresh. 3. The assessee preferred first appeal against the penalty order dated 16.03.2019 before the learned CIT(Appeals). Before the first appellate authority, the assessee raised legal contention that the notice issued

Prem Lata Verma, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1)(1), Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 441/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 10(1)Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2016-17, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte. 2. Brief facts state that the assessee filed her return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 on 14.01.2017, declaring total income at Rs.14 ... Rs.15,00,000/- as income from other sources, assessing total income at Rs.4,29,42,320/-. 4. Assessee filed first appeal before learned CIT(Appeals). Assessee remained un-responded before the first appellate authority against various notices issued u/s. 250 of the Act. Learned CIT(Appeals) dismissed assessee’s first

Pramod Kumar Garg, Agra vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Agra

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 427/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 3

Gaining Securities Services Pvt. Ltd. and added the same in the declared income of the assessee, vide order dated 09.03.2023. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before Learned CIT(A), who concluded that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was valid notice and partly allowed assessee’s appeal

ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Agra vs. Emco Exports, Agra

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 415/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2020-21, wherein learned CIT(A) has allowed assessee’s first appeal for statistical purposes, deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 2. Briefly stating, the appellant assessee is a partnership firm and was engaged ... source, was disallowed u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act and added to the income of the assessee. 3. Assessee preferred first appeal before learned CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) found that the issue of commission payment to foreign agent also arose in assessment year 2022-23 and no adverse

Lokendra Kumar Gautam, Mathura vs. ITO Ward, 1(3)(2), Mathura

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 335/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2017-18, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 2. Briefly stating, the facts are that the assessee is an individual, engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of Pan Masala and Zarda as proprietor ... Rs.1,24,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act, vide assessment order dated 20.12.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. 3. Assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals), who dismissed the appeal with the observations that the assessee could not explain the source of cash deposit

Laxmichand and Company, Gwalior vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), Gwl, Gwalior

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 313/AGR/2025[201718]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 44A

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2017-18, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal, confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 270A of the Act, vide penalty order dated 08.02.2022. 2. Brief facts state that ... above said under reported income of Rs.18,84,945/-, vide penalty order dated 08.02.2022 passed u/s. 270A of the Act. 3. Assessee preferred first appeal before learned CIT(Appeals), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal mainly on the ground of assessee not having filed appeal against the assessment order

ACIT, Agra vs. Saurabh Gupta, Agra

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue, ITA No

ITA 166/AGR/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271DSection 271ESection 69A

hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2015-16, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has allowed assessee’s first appeals, deleting penalties imposed u/s. 271E and 271D of the Act respectively. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessment in the case of the respondent-assessee

ACIT, Agra vs. Saurabh Gupta, Agra

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue, ITA No

ITA 165/AGR/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271DSection 271ESection 69A

ITO, Aligarh vs. Rashid Laloo, Aligarh

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 129/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44A

learned CIT(Appeals) against the said assessment order dated 17.03.2022. Learned CIT(A), after considering assessee’s submissions and documentary evidences, allowed assessee’s first appeal, holding that on animal sales turnover of Rs.33,02,83,735/-, net profit rate of 0.22% shall be 2 | P a g e calculated

Prem Singh, Chamba vs. ACIT Circle Palampur, Palampur

In the result, the appeal for AY 2017-18 stands partly allowed

ITA 947/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 946/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 947/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Prem Singh Dcit Circle, Palampur बनाम/ The Palace. Chamba Himachal Pradesh - 176061 Vs. Himachal Pradesh – 176310 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aampr-8876-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (Cit) (Virtual) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Assessee Is In Further Appeals Before Us For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015-16 & 2017-18 Which Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. First, We Take Up Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 22-07-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 29-12-2017. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Computation Of Capital

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (CIT) (Virtual) - Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 48Section 54Section 54F

Taxable Long Term Capital Gains on sale of property were computed at Rs.79.17 Crores. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the action of Ld. AO in first appeal. Appellate Proceedings 4. The assessee vehemently opposed the rejection of valuation report on the ground that if AO was not satisfied with the valuation ... Therefore, the impugned payment of Rs.97 Lacs was disallowed and considered as Long-Term Capital Gains in the hands of the assessee. 20.2 During first appeal, the assessee stated that M/s Sahijpal & Associates were appointed by the assessee whereas M/s N.M. Thyagariraj, Advocates were appointed by the buyers to complete

Auto Vogue Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. DCIT/ACIT(Cen)-1 Chd, Chandigarh

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 405/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.405/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Auto Vogue Private Limited Dcit/Acit(Central)-1 H.No.50 Sector-28 Sector 19 बनाम/ Vs. C.R. Building Sector – 17 Chandigarh - 160019 Chandigarh - 160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aanca-6705-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Nikhil Goyal (Advocate) & Sh. Ashok Goyal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) - Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-01-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018- 19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon [Cit(A)] Dated 29-01-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 29-09-2021. 2. The Ld. Ar Advanced Arguments Assailing Extrapolation Of Figures As Found Recorded In Document Found During Survey Action.

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal (Advocate) &For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) - Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69C

figures as mentioned in this sheet, Ld. AO made addition of Rs.28,09,380/- (Rs.2,54,115x12 months) and finalized the assessment. 4. During first appeal, it was, inter-alia, argued by the assessee that the alleged excel sheet contained salary payment for a single month only and no evidence

Jaswinder Singh, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Ludhiana

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 22/CHANDI/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.22/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Jaswinder Singh Ito Ward-6(1) 212-A, Ferozepur Road बनाम/ Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana - 141001 Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Brgps-2619-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar (Ca) (Virtual) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) - Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14-01-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011- 12 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 18-11-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] On Best Judgment Basis U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act On 12-12-2018. The Only Prayer Of Ld. Ar Is To Restore The Assessment Back To The File Of Ld. Ao Which Has Been Opposed By Ld. Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar (CA) (Virtual) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) - Sr. DR

Section 147

Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987; (2) TMI 61 SC), we condone the delay in first appeal. Since the assessment has been framed on ex-parte basis, we direct Ld. AO to frame de novo assessment with a direction to the assessee

Deputy Comissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Dehradun vs. Kamal Jewellers, Dehradun

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 161/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Sahini, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Poonam Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 68

that as per Rule 46A (4) of the Rules, Ld. CIT(A) has to power to admit the additional evidence and decide the first appeal without preferring to those documents to A.O. for his comment or objection and Ld. CIT(A) can himself examine the genuineness and veracity

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT, TDS Circle, Panaji

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 171/PAN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr C Naresh [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 131Section 133ASection 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 253(1)

sake of brevity & convenience are heard together for being disposed-off by this common & consolidated order. 3. In advancing these matters together, the first appeal ITA No. 169/PAN/2025 is taken as lead case, resultantly our adjudication laid in succeeding paragraphs shall mutatis-mutandis apply to remaining two appeals ... appellate were still pending. In support of this claim, the appellant relied the recovery notices issued by Ld. AO whereby ‘pending the disposal of first appeals by Ld. NFAC’ at least 20% of disputed tax was requested for immediate payment. To buttress ‘sufficiency’ of former twofold reasons, it was mentioned

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT, TDS Circle, Panaji

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 170/PAN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr C Naresh [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 131Section 133ASection 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 253(1)

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT, TDS Circle, Panaji

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 169/PAN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr C Naresh [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 131Section 133ASection 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 253(1)

Sultan Khan, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(4), Gautam Budh Nagar

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 4595/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalshri Sultan Khan Vs Income Tax Officer, House No. 199, Sufi Chairman War-5(3) (4) Wali Gali, Nai Abadi Dadri, Income Tax Office, G Block Gautam Budh Nagar-203207, Complex, Sector-20, Uttar Pradesh Gautam Budh Nagar- Pan: Bnspk7225H 201307- Uttar Pradesh Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh.Neeraj Kumar (Virtual) Revenue By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/01/2026 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal

Section 144

cause of substantial justice. Considering the Sultan Khan Vs. ITO above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 18 days in filing the first Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter to the file of the A.O. with a direction to frame the de-novo assessment