“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

Harish Chandra Purohit, Ratlam vs. Income Tax Officer - 1, Ratlam

In the result- the Impugned order is set aside as and by way

ITA 221/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 253Section 69A

which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Assessment Order”. 2.10 That the assessee being aggreived by the aforesaid “Impugned Assessment order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the ld. CIT(A) who by the “Impugned Order” has dismissed the 1st Appeal of the assessee

ACIT-1(1), Indore vs. Kriti Nutrients Limited, Indore

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 780/IND/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 246ASection 250Section 253

Impugned Assessment Order” for sake of brevity, convenience & ease. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Assessment Order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “Impugned Order” has partly allowed the first appeal of the assessee

Dharti Madrid County LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2127/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69C

DCIT Page 4 of 6 no general proposition that mistake of counsel by itself is always a sufficient ground. When the assessee had filed first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), it should have been careful enough to ensure that proper compliance was made before the appellate authority other than

Meenaba Divyavirsinhji Alias Digvijaysinhji Jadeja, Bhavnagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Bhavnagar

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

ITA 1693/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2019-20 Meenaba Divyavirsinhji Alias Deputy Commissioner Of Digvijaysinhji Jadeja Income Tax, Circle-1, Diyanirman House, Bhavnagar - 364002 Chitranjan Chowk, Vs. Bhavnagar - 364001 [Pan – Aespj 0763 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mohit Balani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.01.2026 O R D E R

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 270ASection 271ASection 69

receipt this order. 7. It is found that the Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee in the first appeal on merits. He had dismissed the appeal by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has held

Harjeet Kaur, Uttar Pradesh vs. Circle 5(1)(1), G B Nagar, Uttar Pradesh

The appeal is allowed and the

ITA 2731/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalharjeet Kaur Vs. Circle 5(1)(1) S-004, F Block, Omax Income Tax Department Queen, Gautam Buddha Gb Nagar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh – 201307 201301 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Azzpk6790P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ravi Pratap Mall, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT, DR

Section 144Section 68

assessment made u/s 144 of the Act has to be justified for reasons more than just further verification of facts and evidences admitted in first appeal, as the co-terminus of powers of the Commissioner of Appeals gives them sufficient opportunity to decide the issue of facts

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-25 New Delhi, Delhi vs. Faridabad Presswell Pvt Ltd, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the

ITA 2801/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2801/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Assistant Commissioner Of Faridabad Presswell Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Vs. 24, Ashoka Chamber, 5B, Central Circle-25, Room No.317, Rajindra Park, Pusa Road, 3Rd Floor, E-2, Ara Centre, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Extension, Pan No. Aaacfs815B Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250

case of Sundaram & Co. (supra), the assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Act and certain disallowances were made. The assessee preferred first appeal, challenging both the validity of reopening as well as the merits of the case. The CIT(A) came to the conclusion that the assessee

Divay Mohindru, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Jalandhar

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 129/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 129/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Divay Mohindru, Prop. M/S Vs. Ito, Ward 3(1), Mahavir Abhushans, Deep Jalandhar. Market Juakhana Bazar Kalan, Jalandhar. [Pan:-Advpm1552D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Asharay Sarna, Ca. Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 14.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08.01.2026

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 69A

profits on altered trading A/c figures by reducing disclosed sales ( as per 3.8 of the assessment order ) . 4. The matter was carried in first appeal, in course of which elaborate submissions were filed along with documentary evidence consisting of stock register, purchase register, confirmed ledger A/c of purchases and sales

Emm. Kay Electricals, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

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

ITA 208/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Vijh, CA

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 234ASection 250(6)Section 69A

person seized , as per the requirement of provisions of section 153C and the elaborate written submissions which has been filed in course of first appeal has been ignored or not considered and he prayed for remanding 5 ITA 208/Asr/2019 the matter back to the files of the Ld first appellate ... authority even though elaborate written submissions on the legal issue along with supporting case laws has been filed by the assessee in course of first appeal. 6 ITA 208/Asr/2019 10) As such in the interest of justice we remand the matter back to the Ld CIT(A) , for adjudication

Satpal, Proprietor M/S Jialal Satpal, Kaithal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Kaithal

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 1159/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Pranav Jain & Sh. Avneet Singh (Advocate) –For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR (Virtual)

Section 154Section 194Q

less than receipts as reflected in Form 26AS by various deductor while deducting TDS on various transactions with the assessee. During first appeal, it was explained by the assessee that it acted as Kachha Arhtia (Commission agent) in his proprietorship concern and the assessee was providing services to farmers

Ravi Parkesh, Sirsa vs. ITO Ward - 1, Sirsa

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 1152/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Kartik Garg (Advocate) – Ld. AR (Virtual)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR (Virtual)

Section 154Section 194Q

less than receipts as reflected in Form 26AS by various deductor while deducting TDS on various transactions with the assessee. During first appeal, it was explained by the assessee that it acted as Kachha Arhtia (Commission agent) and the assessee was providing services to farmers for sale of their crops

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-19(3), Mumbai vs. Rajen Kirtilal Shah, Mumbai

Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5438/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmil JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 68

Rs.24,89,600/- u/s.68 on LTCG in script M/s. Turbo Tech Engineers Ltd and Rs.49,792/- u/s. 69 towards brokerage. The appellant has filed first appeal against the said impugned order vide ack.no.378207561290118 dtd. 29/1/2018. Thereafter, the appellant has filed Form no.1 and Form no.2 of the Direct

Rcs Associates Charitable Trust, Shimla vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption, Solan

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 769/CHANDI/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jan 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.759/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.769/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2024-25) Rcs Associates Charitable Trust Ito Exemption 74/1, Lower Bazar, Shimla Income Tax Office बनाम/ Vs. Himachal Pradesh - 171001 New Bypass Road, Kathed, Solan (Hp) - 173208 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aabtr-8127-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Vishal Mohan (Sr. Advocate) A/W Sh. Praveen Sharma (Advocate) – Ld. Ars (Virtual Mode) ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23-12-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 06-01-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us For Assessment Years (Ay) 2023-24 & 2024-25. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2023-24 Which Arises Out Of An Order Ld. Addl. Cit / Joint Cit (Appeals)-9, Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 26-03-2025 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Mohan (Sr. Advocate) a/w Sh. PraveenFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 11Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

sincethe amount of Rs.222.83 Lacs was shown by auditor in Form No.10BB as applied out of accumulation of earlier years. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred first appeal against the same. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of CPC on the ground that to rectify the mistake, the assessee

Rcs Associates Charitable Trust, Shimla vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Solan

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 759/CHANDI/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Mohan (Sr. Advocate) a/w Sh. PraveenFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 11Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

Kusum Chauhan, Jagadhari Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3 Yamunanagar, Jagadhari

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 1310/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Akshat Dalal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 56(2)

loss of revenue, Ld. AO added the interest income on protective basis in the hands of the assessee and finalized the assessment. 4. During first appeal, the assessee cited the decision ofHon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Nirmal Devi @ Nirmal Verma (CWP No.20290 of 2020 dated ... income. The Ld. CIT(A), in our opinion, erred in distinguishing the said case law. The other decisions as cited by the assessee during first appeal also support the case of the assessee. Similar is the decision of Hon’ble Himachal Pardesh High Court in the case of Court

Preeti Milan Sankhala, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(3), Pune

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

ITA 939/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.939/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sinha

Section 131Section 133ASection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151ASection 69C

first time. 6. The issue of Tribunal’s power to adjudicate the ground raised before it in second appeal which did not pass through first appeal came for consideration before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ‘Divine Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT’ 5 Preeti Milan Sankhala ... decide the ground which did not arise from the impugned order passed by first appellate authority, irrespective of such ground was raised in first appeal or not. 7. Considering the prayer made by ld. Counsel for the assessee and in the light of the above judgment, we restore

Sudhakar Bajirao Shisode, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

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

ITA 2780/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2780/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Bhagyesh DeshmukhFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sinha

Section 144BSection 147Section 2Section 250Section 69CSection 80C

enclosed with the appeal. Out of which loan account statement and invoice of car were already submitted along with appeal form 35 in first appeal proceedings. 1. Loan disbursement letter indicating loan of ₹9,00,000. 2. Loan account statement. 3. Bank statement showing EMI repayments. 4. Invoice

Mfar Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 938/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Sudhindra B.R., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 194JSection 250

documents. j. When the order of the CIT(A) dated 20.7.2023 was communicated to Appellant, the Appellant checked the income tax portal wherein the first appeal proceedings for AY 2021-22 was still pending. The Appellant thus believed that the appeal filed against the assessment order was still pending

Shah Petroleum Products, Chembur vs. ACIT, Circle 27(3), Mumbai, Vashi

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4905/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2012-13 Shah Petroleum Products, Acit, Circle 27(3), Bpcl Petrol Pump, Opp. Room No. 423, 4Th Floor, Shoppers Stop, Ghatkopar Vs. Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Mahul Road, Chembur, Mumbai, Station Commercial Mumbai – 400089. Complex, Vashi, Pan – Aabfs2738Q Navi Mumbai – 400703. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.06.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2012-13. 2. In This Case, The Ao Had Received The Information Dated 19.03.2019 From The Ddit (Inv.) Unit – 5(4), Mumbai To The Effect That In A Survey Action Under Section 132 Of The Act Carried Out In The Case Of M/S. Evergreen Enterprise, Statement Of Mr. Nilesh Bharani, Being Partner Of Such Enterprises Recorded Under Section 132 (4) Of The Act, Wherefrom Undisclosed Activity Of Money 2 Shah Petroleum Products

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, SR. D.R

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 250

Evergreen Enterprise and on the basis of table depicted above: 7. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the said addition by filing the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, could not get any relief, as the Ld. Commissioner more or less on the same reasoning as of the Assessing Officer

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Subhkaran & Sons, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that by the revenue is dismissed, for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 3986/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Snehal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 1Section 132

less Rs.2,62,42,107/-) was added to the total income of the assessee. 3.4. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee filed the first appeal. After considering the overall facts of the case, ld. CIT(A) while partly allowing the appeal, estimated the additional income at 0.5% of the sales ... accommodation entries of purchases and sales. The A0 has made similar additions in the assesses of Llyod group which are before me in first appeal. The income in those cases has been AYs: 2013-14 to 2017-18 estimated at the rate of 5% of sales or purchases, whichever

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Subhkaran & Sons, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that by the revenue is dismissed, for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 3969/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Snehal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 1Section 132