“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

ITO, TDS Ward 74(1), New Delhi vs. Delhi Police, New Delhi

In the result appeals of revenue are disposed of

ITA 8064/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri J K Handa, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan Sr.DR

Section 201(1)Section 271CSection 274

could have called remand report from the AO on the required examination and verification of documents and thereafter he was required to adjudicate the first appeal. The learned senior DR submitted that the department has not serious objection if the Assessing Officer, after due examination and verification of the relevant ... order. Therefore in our considered opinion if the said order is set aside and the Ld. CIT(A) is again ask to adjudicate the first appeal afresh by following the procedure as noted above then there would be multiplicity of proceedings and therefore as agreed by learned representative both

ITO, TDS, Ward-74(1), New Delhi vs. Delhi Police, New Delhi

In the result appeals of revenue are disposed of

ITA 8063/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri J K Handa, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan Sr.DR

Section 201(1)Section 271CSection 274

Sujata Nayak, Rayagada vs. ITO, Rayagada

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 151/CTK/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack19 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2010-2011 2011 Smt.Sujata Sujata Nayak Nayak, W/O. Vs. Ito, Ito, Rayagada Rayagada Ward, Ward, Shri Lokanath Nayak, Omp Shri Lokanath Nayak, Omp Rayagada Road, Indira Nagar, 6Th Lane, Road, Indira Nagar, 6 Po;Dist: Rayagada Po;Dist: Rayagada Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Addpn 2024 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Archita Nayak, Ar : Ms Archita Nayak, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/01 /01/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Berhampur, In Appeal No.0055/13 , Berhampur, In Appeal No.0055/13-14 Dated Dated 31.7.2014 For The Assessment Year Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. Ms Archita Nayak, Ms Archita Nayak, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Ms Archita Nayak, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr

Section 143(3)

copy of the alleged earlier appeal but also indicates the impossible fact of the second appeal having been filed before disposal of the first appeal. 6. 'The law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute

M/S Beyond Key Systems P Ltd, Indore vs. The DCIT/ACIT 1(1), Indore

ITA 184/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Beyond Key Systems Dcit/Acit-Circle,1(1) Private Ltd. Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaccb 7622 G Assessee By Shri Manish Dafaria, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.01.2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(7)Section 43BSection 44A

which caused serious grievance to the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal to Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) decided first-appeal vide order dated 06.05.2022 but did not grant relief to assessee. Now being aggrieved by order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee come in this ... absolutely bad. (iii) Thirdly, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed appeal-order even before expiry of hearing-date and, therefore, the order of first appeal is also bad. Carrying us to the Paper-Book, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) initially fixed the hearing of appeal through

Raj Abhishek Corporation, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 117/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.117/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Raj Abhishek Corporation Principal Commissioner Of Income 501,Kohinoortextiles Market, Tax, Surat-1, Room No.123, Aaykar Vs. Ring Road, Surat-395002 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat—395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajfr 6297 D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ketan Jagirdar, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Jagirdar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80I

Section 80HHC and passed assessment orders for the two years. These were made subject matter of challenge by the assessee, who succeeded in the first appeal. It was observed that the Assessing Officer had excluded 90% of the profit on sale of export license while computing deduction under Explanation ... indiankanoon.org/doc/180884801/ 13 of export license, but this had not been allowed and followed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee, therefore, succeeded in the first appeal. 35. The tribunal by order dated 7th September, 2007 in ITA 2210 & 2211/Del/2005 held that the Commissioner was not justified in invoking his power

Ujjawala Power Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 6564/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

energy saving device, however, depreciation on civil work, ancillary equipments and cost of installation was allowed @15% treating the same as plant & machinery. In first appeal, the CIT(A) decided the issue in favour of the assessee. On appeal by the Revenue, ITAT upheld the order

ITO, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat vs. Anshuman Ramdayalji Kumawat, Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 22/SRT/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar

Section 132(4)Section 144

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

ITO, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat vs. Anshuman Ramdayalji Kumawat, Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 21/SRT/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar

Section 132(4)Section 144

ITO, Ward 2(3)(8), Surat vs. Mukesh Mahavirprasad Sen, Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 16/SRT/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar

Section 132(4)Section 144

ITO, Ward 2(3)(8), Surat vs. Mukesh Mahavirprasad Sen, Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 15/SRT/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar

Section 132(4)Section 144

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(8), Surat vs. Shri Rajesh Kumar Pamecha, Ajmer

In the result the ground No

ITA 87/SRT/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar

Section 132(4)Section 144

Shri Suresh Mal Lodha, 537-38, Mahima Trinity, New Sanganer Road, Swej Farm, Jaipur vs. ACIT Jaipur, Jaipur

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

ITA 968/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahenda Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

computed the penalty amount of Rs.7,93,130/- and levied the same upon the assessee u/s 271(1)© of the Act. 3.2 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty by observing as under:- “2.3. I have perused the facts of the case, the penalty order

Jhalawar Kendriya Sahakari Bnak Ltd, Jhalawar vs. Adl/ADIT (I&Ci), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/JPR/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 271FSection 285B

Rs.1,21,000/- For 29 days (29.01.2020 to 26.02.2020) @ 1000/- per day Rs. 29,000/- Total Rs. 1,50,000/- In first appeal the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty by observing that from the penalty order, it is clearly seen that the appellant has failed to comply with

Mahesh Kumar Agrawal HUF, Bhartpur vs. ITO, Bhartpur

In the result, the ground no

ITA 250/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT

Section 10(35)Section 10(38)Section 147oSection 148

year under consideration as her income from undisclosed sources and thus computed the bogus LTCG claimed u/s 10(38) of the Act. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO holding as under:- 11 MAHESH KUMAR AGARWAL, HUF VS ITO, WARD 1, BHARATPUR

Smt. Manju Agrawal, Bhartpur vs. ITO, Bhartpur

In the result, the ground no

ITA 249/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT

Section 10(38)

year under consideration as her income from undisclosed sources and thus computed the bogus LTCG claimed u/s 10(38) of the Act. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO holding as under:- 3.7 Hence, it is clear from the above facts, judicial decisions

Shri Narshing Bindal, Dewas vs. ACIT 1(1), Ujjain

ITA 90/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Narsingh Bindal, Acit-1(1) 154, M.G. Road, Kannod, Ujjain बनाम/ Dewas Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Ajhpb 1234 B Assessee By Shri R.S. Dave, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.01.2023

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

profit rate; estimated business income; and thus made an addition of Rs. 31,10,550/-. 4. Aggrieved by assessment-order, the assessee filed first-appeal to Ld. CIT(A) wherein the Ld. CIT(A) granted relief of Rs. 26,10,550/- out of the addition ... confirmed the rest of the addition to the extent of Rs. 5,00,000/-. This way, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed first appeal of assessee. Still being aggrieved by order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has come in this appeal before us. 5. The grounds raised by assessee

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(3)(6), Surat vs. Shri Abhishek Navnitkumar Doshi, Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 38/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 21/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Abhishek Navnitkumar Doshi, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), 204/205, 2Nd Floor, 6/1911-12, Surat. Jin Shanti Building, Jada Khadi, Mahidharpura – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhpd0064M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.38/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2012-13) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(6), Vs. Abhishek Navnitkumar Doshi, 204/205, 2Nd Floor, 6/1911-12, Surat. Jin Shanti Building, Jada Khadi, Mahidharpura – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhpd0064M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28/12/2022 09/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

Abhishek Navnitkumar Doshi, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, WD. 2(3)(7), Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 21/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

Orient Clothing Company Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-19(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 8931/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jeetender Chand, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, imposed a penalty of Rs.52,22,411/- vide order dated 30.03.2019. 2.2 The Assessee being aggrieved, preferred first appeal before the ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order affirmed the levy of penalty by dismissing the appeal of the Assessee. Being aggrieved, the Assessee

M/S Ramavtar Krishanavtar, Kota vs. Income Tax Officer, Kota

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

ITA 214/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 43Section 43(5)(e)

commodities and is hereby disallowed. Therefore the amount of Rs. 39,88.783/- is added back to the total income of the assessee. ‘’ 2.2 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO by observing as under:- As regards Ground of appeal no 2, I have