“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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Safal Engineers and Realties LLP, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1731/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)

treated as undisclosed business income on account of on- money receipts, which was added to the income of the assessee. 6.3. In first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) reduced the average selling price of Rs.10,600/- as worked out by the Assessing Officer to Rs.7,000/- per sq. ft. Further

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Safal Engineers and Realties LLP, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1730/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)

Safal Engineers and Realties LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1700/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)

Safal Engineers and Realties LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1699/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)

Mustafa Jainuddin Amreliwala, Jalgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jalgaon

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

ITA 1993/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1993/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Mustafa Jainuddin Amreliwala, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O. M/S. Jainuddin Brothers, Ward-1(1), Jalgaon 169, Bhawani Peth, Jalgaon – 425 001 Maharashtra Pan : Agwpa0152F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawadiaFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

Section 144Section 147Section 250(6)Section 69

provide the basis in arriving such conclusion. We note that the statute clearly provided the manner, mechanism and the guidelines for adjudication of first appeal. Ld.CIT(A) failed to adhere to the said guidelines. It is trite law that if a statute provides for a thing to be done

Shilpa Shetty Kundra, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, in the above terms

ITA 996/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Dhawan, Adv. & RaviFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (SR. D.R.)

Section 133(6)Section 194CSection 250

chargeable to tax, as per the provisions of Sec. 115BBE of the Act. 11. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before Ld. Commissioner raising various grounds, as mentioned by the Ld. Commissioner in para -3 of the impugned order and also filed her written

Ramesh Lalawat, Vashi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(2)(1), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 8838/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Ramesh Lalawat Income Tax Officer, Room No 102, Goma Sadan Ward 28(2)(1), Plot No 400, Mumbai Nr Cisf, Juhu Gaon Vs. Sector No. 11, Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400703 (Pan: Aeepl2218K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Ajay R. Singh, Advocate Revenue : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074653077(1), Dated 18.03.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Mum-W-(272)(91), U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 15.09.2023, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 249Section 249(2)Section 3Section 5

registry for which a petition for condonation of delay is placed on record. We also note from ground no.1 raised by the assessee that first appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was also barred by limitation under provisions of section 249(2) on account of delay of 114 days ... above, if we examine the facts, then it would reveal that there is a delay of 114 days in filing of the first appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). In his submissions as reproduced in the order of ld. CIT(A), assessee has explained the reasons which

Nathan Anil Rao, Mumbai vs. The ITO -Circle 23(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 8666/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Account Member) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar Soni, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Tiwari

Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69

contended by the assessee that appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). It is contended by the assessee that during the first appeal proceeding, the asses during the first appeal proceeding, the assessee had filed see had filed adjournment letters before the Ld. CIT(A) seeking time for adjournment letters before

Dazzler Confectionery Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(1)(1, Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed

ITA 8411/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Mr. Rahul Sarda, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, SR AR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35D

evaded on the income of Rs.1,38,07,031/-. 4. Therefore, the Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said penalty levied, by filing First Appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who, vide impugned order, affirmed the penalty by dismissing the First Appeal filed by the Assessee. 5. Thus, the Assessee, being aggrieved

Pramod Kumar, Kurdi, Manglour vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Dehradun

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

ITA 4/DDN/2026[2022 2023]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2022-23] Pramod Kumar Vs Cit Appeal Kurdi Manglour, Manglaur, Karanpur Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Pan-Awopk3370R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Nidhi Saini, Ca Respondent By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Bench The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.12.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 23.03.2024 Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Heard The Contentions Of Both The Parties & Perused The Material Available On Record. It Is Found From Record That This Appeal Is Dismissed By Ld. Cit(A) As The Same Was Filed Delayed. The Claim Of The Assessee Is That Assessment Order Was Physically Served On 13.09.2024 & The Appeal Was Filed On 21.01.2024 Therefore, There Was No Delay In Filing The Appeal Before Ld. Cit(A) Who Has Not Appreciated These Facts. We Condoned The Delay If Any, In Filing First Appeal Before Ld. Cit(A) & Restore The Matter To Ao As The Assessment Order Is Also Passed U/S 144 Of The Act. The Assessee Is Directed To File All The Necessary Evidences To Substantiate The Claim Made. Ao Is Directed To Pass The Order Denovo Afresh After Considering The Submissions Filed By The Assessee. With These Directions, The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Allowed For Statistical Purposes.

Section 144Section 250

delay in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has not appreciated these facts. We condoned the delay if any, in filing first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to AO as the assessment order is also passed u/s 144 of the Act. The assessee

Jai Kissan Foods, Kashipur vs. Ward-2(2)(1) Kashipur, Kashipur

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

ITA 38/DDN/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2022-23] Jai Kisan Foods Vs Ward-2(2)(1) Village Nijhraudham Singh Kashipur Nagar, Kashipur, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Pan-Aaofj0629G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ca Respondent By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Bench: The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.12.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)/Addl/Jcit(A)-13, Mumbai [“Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Against The Rectification Order Dated 15.10.2024 Passed U/S 154 Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Heard The Contentions Of Both The Parties & Perused The Material Available On Record. Ld. Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee By Not Condoning The Delay Of 267 Days. From The Perusal Of The Appeal Memo Filed Before Ld. Cit(A) In Form No. 35 As Well As Order Of Ld. Cit(A), It Is Observed That The Assessee Has Not Tendered Any Valid Explanation For Delay In Filing The Appeal.

Section 154Section 250

issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with the liberty to the assessee to explain the reason for delay in filing the first appeal by way of applications/affidavits and if such application is filed, Ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the same with a liberty to decide

ITO, Ward- 2(5), Dehradun vs. Uttrakhand Poorv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd., Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3023/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 158ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

order dated 24.03.2017 of INR 2,30,99,600/- on the amount of income claimed as exempted u/s 10(26BBB) as concealed income. IN first appeal, the penalty was deleted by Ld. CIT(A) by following the order in assessee’s own case for AY 2009-10. During the course

Awla Infra, Ferozepur vs. Assitant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, Ferozepur

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

ITA 53/ASR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C. A

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

assessee and the same are on record. 4 I.T.A. No. 53/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 10. The assessee now prays for setting aside the first appeal order (inadvertently passed) and prays for adjudication of the appeal filed on 18th January, 2020, against the quantum order u/s 143(3), dated 29/12/2019

Sh. Zahoor Ahmad Kakroo, Baramula vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

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

ITA 230/ASR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 230/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Zahoor Ahmad Kakroo, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Kanlibagh, Near Masjid Umer, Srinagar. Baramulla, Jammu & Kashmir. [Pan:-Arxpk1190K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Shabir Ahmad Mir, Ca Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 250

been completed on a total income of Rs.11.97 lakhs (with an addition of Rs.10.23 lakhs to the returned income). 6. The matter carried in first appeal has been dismissed by the Ld. CIT (A) in absence of any response or submissions to notice issued on seven separate occasions (as evident

Shri Ghulam Nabi Lone, Anantnag vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Anantnag

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

ITA 624/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 624/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Ghulam Nabi Lone, Vs. Ito, Ward, Dangarpora, Siligam, Pahalgam, Anantnag. Ananthnag, Jammu & Kashmir. [Pan:-Ahypl1427H] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None (Written Submission) Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Rs.12.95 lakhs (which includes addition of SBN u/s 69A plus business profits estimated @ 8% of remaining credits in bank). 6. The matter carried in first appeal has been dismissed in absence of adequate response to notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), even though initially response has been filed explaining

Yasir Nisar Wani, Srinagar vs. ITO, Srinagar

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

ITA 100/ASR/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2008-2009

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Vaseem Ahmad, C.A

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

supporting documentary evidences forthcoming from his father), which resulted in assessment of the said amount as his income. 8. The matter carried in first appeal has been dismissed by the Ld CIT(A) , in absence of any response to various notices issued in course of appellate proceedings, without any adjudication

Shri Durdundeshwar Urban Credit Souhard Sahakari Nyt, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Gokak

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 311/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita No. 306 To 307 & 311/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2020-21 Shri Durdundeshwar Urban Credit Souhard Sahakari Niyamita Subhash Road, Sankeshwar Belagavi-591313 Pan:Aaaas5612D . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Rijula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

Supreme Court rendered in ‘Chandra Kishore Jha Vs Mahavir Prasad’ [1999, 8 SCC 266 (SC)]. 11. We note that, while dealing with the first appeal filed u/s 246A of the Act, the provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act mandates the Ld. NFAC to cease the first appeal ... provide the basis/support in forming such conclusion/decision. Thus, we note that, the statute clearly provided the manner, mechanism and the guidelines for adjudication of first appeal. Therefore, any adjudication which is not in consonance with such provided mechanism, per-se rendered itself irregular, however curable. It is trite law that

Shri Durdundeshwar Urban Credit Souhard Sahakari Nyt, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Gokak

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 307/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Rijula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

Shri Durdundeshwar Urban Credit Souhard Sahakari Nyt, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Gokak

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 306/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Rijula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

Air Wind Green Energy Limited, Bhavnagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2435/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Varis Isani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 273BSection 274

delay was properly explained. Hence, the order passed by the appellate authority deserves to be quashed and set aside and delay file in First Appeal and delay of 1 months cause in filing a second appeal is to be condone. 4. The opportunity to submit details in the case