“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

Luhariwala Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 10 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2251/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleluhariwala Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd., V. Acit – 10(2)(1) A-204, Corporate Centre Premises Room No. 509, 5Th Floor Andheri Kurla Road, Marol Pipeline Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400059 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacl0784F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashok Bansali Department By : Shri Mehul Jain

For Appellant: Shri Ashok BansaliFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 131Section 143(2)

page nos. 1 to 48 thereof, which, inter-alia, also contain the details U/r 11UA have also been filed during the course of the first appeal. It may please be appreciated from the same (page 45 of the paper book) that the fair market value U/R 11UA comes

Pr. CIT Circle-2, Mumbai vs. Bharat Prtroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1601/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1601/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Bharat Petroleum बिधम/ Pcit, Circle-2 Corporation Ltd. Room No.344, Aayakar Vs. Taxation Section, Bhavan, M. K. Road, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan 1, Mumbai-400020. 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb2902M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-02 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 21.02.2020 For Assessment Year [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”] 2016-17 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”].

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. MistryFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 32A

thereafter there is no change in the chemical composition or other properties of the gas in the activity of filling the cylinder. In first appeal, the CIT(A) affirmed the findings of Assessing Officer. On further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal held that bottling of LPG cylinders

Textron India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the grounds argued by assessee and other issues that has not been pressed is kept open

ITA 711/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, CIT-DR

Section 92C(3)(c)Section 92D

nature of service rendered as an element of implicit contract is struck down and therefore, the addition of Rs.21.49 lakhs cannot be sustained in first appeal. It is ordered accordingly. 24. Before us, learned DR has relied on order of the AO but could not controvert the findings

Amasebail Vyvasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha Limited, Udupi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 537/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh R. Uppin, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 119Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

premise of escaped assessment referable to section 148 of the Income-tax Act. This position notwithstanding, when an assessment is subjected to first appeal or further appeals under the Income-tax Act or all questions germane for concluding the assessment would be relevant and claims which may result in modification

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Bharath Infra Exports & Imports Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R, Addl.DIT (DR)

Section 133ASection 14ASection 69

aforesaid provisions at the appropriate stage. We have also to be mindful of the fact that the said provision is applicable in respect of first appeals against the assessment order. The present appeal under Section 260A of the Act is against the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, where

M/S. Shri Mahishasuramardini Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Haveri vs. Income Tax Officer, Wrd-1, Haveri

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

ITA 566/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Vishal S Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 234ASection 234BSection 69ASection 80P(2)(a)

The Income-Tax Officer-26(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Ramaraja Kshatriya Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1146/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2022AY 2017-2018

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

applying the provisions of Section 80P(4) of the Act denied deduction to the assessee. On first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) had deleted the disallowance by placing reliance in the order of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Yrs. 2014-15 and 2015-16 in ITA No.4896

Thakor Electronics Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA

ITA 1080/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: For Revenue : Shri Airiju Jaikar, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikar, Sr. AR

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

Administrated at outset that the relevant factual back drop as well as the issue involved both the cases are identical. We therefore treat the first appeal in ITA No. 1079/Mum/2022 for the assessment year 2009-10 as a lead case. 2. We advert to the basic relevant facts the assessee

Thakor Electronics Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA

ITA 1079/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: For Revenue : Shri Airiju Jaikar, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikar, Sr. AR

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

Sri. K. Satish Kumar, Bengaluru vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-9, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1988/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 133A(1)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234A

agitated, in addition to the addition of Rs.7,55,85,800/- made by the AO on protective basis. 2.1 The appellant's first appeal was dismissed in Limine by the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee had not paid the taxes in full in respect

Rudrapratap Tripathi, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals)-II, Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the manner indicated above

ITA 1730/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1730/Mum/2020 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit Cir-3, Rudra Pratap Tripathi R. No. 2, B-Wing, 6Th Prop. M/S Indian Corporation, Floor, Ashar It Park, 502, Modi House, 5Th Floor बनाम/ Road No. 16, Wagle Indl. Opp. Rto Office Vs. Estate, Thane, Eastern Express Highway, Maharashtra, Thane West, Maharashtra Pin-400 604 Pin-400 602 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Actpt0115A (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. K. Garg, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 13.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Garg, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 24

such disallowance and that too on adhoc basis, was called for and unjustified. The said adhoc disallowance had not been contested in the first appeal, but the same had been contested by way of additional ground. So far as material available with the appellant 21 I.T.A. No. 1730/Mum/2020 Rudra Pratap

Mukesh K Shah HUF, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-29(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4902/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4902/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit Circle-29(2), Mukesh K Shah Huf R. No. 202, C-10, 2Nd B-12, Chandra Niwas, Above बिधम/ Floor, Pratayaksha Lijjat Papad, Mulund (West), Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Vs. Mumbai-400 080. Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400 051 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaghs3814L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Radha Halbe, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri T. Shankar, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 06.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 27.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 10.05.2019, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-40, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment U/S 143(3) For Ay 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Ms. Radha Halbe, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)

assessee is not true and cannot be allowed. 4. Accordingly, AO treated the claim amount of Rs. 17 lakhs as non-genuine. In the first appeal, Ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the action of AO. 6 I.T.A. No. 4902/Mum/2019 Mukesh K. Shah HUF 5. Before us, Ld. Counsel

DCIT Cir 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M. Visvesvaraya Industrial Research & Development Centre, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3697/MUM/2016[1989-90]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 1989-90

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3697 & 3698/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 1989-90 & 1990-91) M/S M. Visvesvarya Dcit(A)-3(2)(1), R. No. 608, 6Th Floor, Industrial Research & Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, बिधम/ Development Centre Mumbai-400 005 31St Floor, Centre 1, Cuffe Vs. Parade, Colaba, Mumbai – 400 005 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcm0996K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Shri Nimesh Yadav, Ld. Dr अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina & Shri Maneck F. Andhyarujina , Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 21.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 22.02.2016, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-8, Mumbai For The Ay 1989-90 & 1990-91. 2

For Respondent: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina &

Section 220(2)

business income of the assessee. Since the cost of construction of property was adjusted against total receipts, claim of depreciation was disallowed. 9. In first appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) vide order dated 10/8/1993 held that the total receipts shown by the assessee comprised of primary basic rent

M/S Akme Harmony Apartments Owners Welfare Association, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(2)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 993/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Smt. D.D. Shamala, D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 167BSection 234

issue has been examined by the AO in his order u/s 143(3) dated 28/02/2015 which is also reported to be pending in first appeal with CIT(A)-9, Bengaluru. The impugned disallowances have been made on grounds of non-mutuality in respect of the interest-receipts on Bank-deposits

Anurag Chandra, Noida vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2407/MUM/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Tejveer SinghFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 143(3)

natural justice without giving any opportunity of personal hearing to the Appellant either at the stage of assessment or at the stage of first appeal, despite the appellant requesting for such personal hearing. 9 ITA.NO. 2407/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2016-17) Shri Anurag Chandra 2. The Impugned Order is merely a reproduction

Dy CIT Dd-4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sheth Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 12/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 23(5)

available as stock- in-trade. We, therefore, overturn the impugned order on this score and delete the addition of Rs.1.47 crore sustained in the first appeal.” 5.14. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we hold that no addition on account

Dy CIT Dd-4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sheth Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 11/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 23(5)

Sheth Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Ciecle-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1954/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 23(5)

M/S Sheth Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Central Circle- 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1953/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 23(5)

Blue Spot Equipment Company Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. TDS CPC., Ghaziabad

ITA 174/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. A.R

Section 200ASection 234E

that:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) not condoning delay in filing First appeal whereas there was bonafide reason was there. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case