“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

Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward- 1, Meerut

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5403/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2009-10 Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Ito Ward-1, Meerut, S/O. Kashi Ram, Umes Distt. Meerut (Up) Vihar, 78-D, Naveen Mandi, Vs. Transport Nagar, Meerut Pan Ankpa8702E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Om Prakash, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 54B

impugned reopening is invalid and unlawfully made, so it is requested to be quashed and nullified; accordingly impugned assessment order and first appeal order may please be quashed as nullity being founded on invalid reasons; 5. That impugned reopening action u/s 148 made to assess alleged capital gains (difference ... foundation of reasons itself become non-existent, then no further addition on any other issue /aspect can be made, accordingly impugned assessment order and first appeal order may please be quashed as nullity being founded on non-existent reasons; 6. That impugned reopening action us 148 is based on invalid

Shri Vinod Choudhary, Indore vs. ITO1 3), Indore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 206/IND/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Vinod Choudhary, Ito 1(3) 12, Niranjanpur, Indore Vs. Lasudia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Akrpv 4892 Q Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bomb, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2023

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 54F

addition of Rs. 1,07,93,900/-, being 1/4th share of assessee in the taxable capital gain computed by him. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed. Therefore, the assessee has come in this appeal before us assailing the orders of lower authorities

Ocean Exim India Private Ltd, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 37/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Prabha Rana (Adv.)For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(A)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

income which are produced in CIT(A) order at pages 2 to 4. 3 Ocean Exim India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 5. In first appeal the assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) who confirmed the disallowance made by AO by observing as under:- “8. I view

Sanjiv Gupta, Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Noida

ITA 1729/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13 Sanjiv Gupta, G-602, Versus Dcit, Central Circle-1, Pearl Gateway Tower, Noida. Sector-44, Noida. Pan: Adypg8000D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Mukul Gupta, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Sh. Jeetandra Kumar Kale, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 54F

amount of Rs.45,36,294/- as unaccounted expenditure on account of exemption claimed u/s. 54F of the Act. 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, preferred first appeal before the ld. Commissioner on the legality of the initiation of proceedings u/s. 147/148 of the Act as well as on merits

Daya Sapra, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward- 23(2), New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 280/DEL/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2008-09

Section 250

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and Rs. 1327/- as interest income. 6 4. The Assessee being aggrieved by filling first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, challenged the addition of Rs. 1,56,000/- and Rs. 27,27,350/-. The Assessee by filing its letters dated

ACIT CC-25, New Delhi vs. Pawansut Holdings Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue department, stand dismissed in the terms enumerated above

ITA 4951/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. S.L. Verma, Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Agarwal, Ld. CA

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250(6)

case pertaining to A.Y. 2010-11. 5. The Assessee, being aggrieved with the additions made and assessment orders passed by the AO, by filling first appeals before the Ld. Commissioner, challenged the said additions, who partly allowed the appeals of the Assessee by holding that since the substantive additions with

ACIT CC-25, New Delhi vs. Pawansut Holdings Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue department, stand dismissed in the terms enumerated above

ITA 4950/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. S.L. Verma, Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Agarwal, Ld. CA

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250(6)

Shriamit Agrawal, Indore vs. The ITO Ward 1(3), Indore

ITA 212/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Amit Agrawal Ito, Ward-1(3) बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abrpa 2105 L Assessee By Shri S. N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2023

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” [Emphasis supplied] 4. Aggrieved by the action of Ld. AO, the assessee went in first appeal to Ld. CIT(A) but however did not get any relief. Now the assessee has come in this appeal before us assailing the order of first appellate

Bikaner Engineering Works, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 372/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Mrs. Prabha Rana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar Beign, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Rs.46,062/- towards PF and Rs.44,341/- towards ESI) being the late payment of Employees Contribution under Provident Fund and ESI Acts. 2.2 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance made by the AO on account of late deposit of employees contribution towards

Krishan Kumar Lal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 45(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 2154/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 68

additional evidence ought to have been admitted and considered by the ld.CIT(A) for adjudication of grounds of assessee placed in form No.35 of first appeal. 5. Replying to the above, the ld. Sr. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. However, in all fairness he submitted that

Sri.John Mathew N, Alappuzha vs. The ITO, WD-2, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 81/COCH/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri John Mathew N. The Income Tax Officer Neroth House Ward - 2, Alleppey Vs. No. 1, Jubilee Road Alappuzha [Pan: Acupm8885D] Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Anil D. Nair & Shri P.K. Biju, Advocates Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Appeal By The Assessee Challenges The Validity Of The Reassessment Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 20.11.2007 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2001-02, Since Upheld In First Appeal Vide Order Dated 24.01.2018 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kottayam (‘Cit(A)’ For Short). 2.1 At The Outset, Shri Anil D. Nair, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee-Appellant, Would Submit That The Basis Of The Assessee’S Challenge Is Two-Fold: (A) Non-Supply Of The Reasons Recorded; & (B) True & Full Disclosure Of All Material Facts Relating To The Income Escaping Assessment By The Assessee Per His Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair &For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(2)Section 230ASection 234B

with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 20.11.2007 for assessment year (AY) 2001-02, since upheld in first appeal vide Order dated 24.01.2018 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kottayam (‘CIT(A)’ for short). 2.1 At the outset, Shri Anil D. Nair

K World Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2523/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Sanjana Sachdev, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, Ld. CIT/DR

Section 153ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

sought to be evaded vide penalty order dated 20.03.2018 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, preferred first appeal before the ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order affirmed the penalty order on the premise that the Assessee had not been able to prove the genuineness

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat vs. Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 588/SRT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.569/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), 207, 2Nd Floor, 6/2060/61 Vedant Surat. Building Bojabhai Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aovpp8989A (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.588/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2008-09) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), Vs. Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, 207, 2Nd Floor, 6/2060/61 Vedant Surat. Building Bojabhai Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aovpp8989A (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Vijayvargia, Ca Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 03/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2023

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

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

Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 569/SRT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Late Shri Bhimsen Darbarilal Arora, Surat vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Surat

In the result, ground no.4 raised by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1706/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1706/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Physical Court Hearing) Bhimsen Darbarilal Arora Through, Vs. The Acit, Circle-5, L/H. Rajat Bhimsen Arora, Surat. Smt. Mamta Bhimsen Arora, A-201, Madhulika Apartment, Bhatar Road, Surat. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acaps9230L

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

Mukesh Goyal, Gangapurcity vs. ITO, Sawai Madhopur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 406/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Dinesh Kumar Jain (Adv.)For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 68Section 69

invoking section 68/69 & 115BBE and issued demand of Rs.1,15,710/-. Aggrieved with the order u/s 154, the Appellant filed first appeal to the CIT(A). The Ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal. Ground-wise submissions are as under: - 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case

Manju Saran, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 7(1), Jpr, Jaipur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 423/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia (CA) &For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271BSection 274

Manju Saran corrupted at the eleventh hour of due date of finalizing the audit & accounts However, neither before the Assessing Officer, nor during first appeal proceedings did the appellant furnish any evidence/corroborating material like bill of computer technicians etc. in support of its claim that there was some technical glitch

Simplex Engineering & Foundry Works Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (Ltu), Circle-1, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands

ITA 2621/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2011-12 Simplex Engineering & Foundry Versus Dcit, Ltu Circle-1, Works Pvt. Ltd., 1503, Hemkunt New Delhi. Tower, 98, Nehru Place, New Delhi. Pan: Aabcs4930P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. M.P. Rastogi, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jeetandra Kumar Kale, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty has been levied on the aforesaid additions of Rs.29,26,682/- & Rs.1,00,000/-. 3. The Assessee by filing first appeal before the ld. Commissioner challenged the penalty imposed on the aforesaid additions. The ld. Commissioner vide impugned order, affirmed the penalty levied on the aforesaid additions qua education

Nimbus Pipes Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 384/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Badaya (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri R.S. Meel (JCIT)

Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

contribution paid before the due date of filing of return of income which are produced in CIT(A) order at pages 3. 5. In first appeal the assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) who confirmed the disallowance made by AO by observing as under:- “ 6.22 From above observations

Livpure P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-5, New Delhi

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

ITA 2812/DEL/2019[2014-151]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2023AY 2014-151

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Bipul Matta, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Chand, Ld. Sr. DR

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

nature”, which was claimed by the Assessee incurred on advertising and publicity as “revenue in nature”. 5. The Assessee being aggrieved preferred first appeal before the ld. Commissioner and reiterated its claim as claimed before the Assessing Officer. The ld. Commissioner by the impugned order, though affirmed the said addition