“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

Sarif, Jalesar, Etah vs. Assessin Officer, Ward-4(3)(1), Dinesh Nagar Etah

In the result, both the appeals ITA Nos

ITA 463/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2014-15. Ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal preferred against the assessment order dated 22.05.2023 passed u/s. 147/144B of the Act, upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay ... Rs.1,31,58,116/- as bogus purchases, vide assessment order dated 22.05.2023 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before learned CIT(Appeals), who dismissed the same upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay. 5. This second appeal has been

Shri Jasbir Singh Sahni, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Bathinda

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 45/ASR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri Salil Chopra (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144

family. The supporting documents have also been placed on record. It has been stated that these circumstances have led to delay in filing of first appeal as well as subsequent appeal to Tribunal. The Ld. AR also stated that the assessee is in a position to substantiate its case

Damodar Mangalji & Company Limited, Panaji vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Panaji

Appeals stands DISMISSED

ITA 35/PAN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 034 & 035/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2014-15 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Damodar Niwas, 1St Floor, Mc Road, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan : Aaacd6880G . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Jt./Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1/Circle-1(1), Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/12/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Twin Appeals Of Assessee Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Are Directed Against Separate Din & Order 1070138041(1) Dt. 08/11/2024 & 1070321994(1) Dt. 13/11/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac/Cit(A)’] Which Sprang From Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Anent To Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2014-15 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 253(3)Section 37(1)Section 40(1)(i)

sake of brevity & convenience are heard together for being disposed-off by this common & consolidated order. 3. In adjudicating these matters together, the first appeal ITA No. 034/PAN/2025 is taken as lead case, resultantly our adjudication laid separately (if any) in succeeding paragraphs shall mutatis-mutandis apply to remaining appeal ... appellant, we have heard rival party’s common submissions on; (i) delay in instituting the present twin appeals (ii) reasons behind non-prosecution of first appeals which were disposed-off ex-parte on merits (ii) seeking remand of cases to the file of Ld. NFAC. Subject to rule

Damodar Mangalji & Company Limited, Panaji vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range - 1, Panaji

Appeals stands DISMISSED

ITA 34/PAN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 253(3)Section 37(1)Section 40(1)(i)

Anuradha Seth, Ludhiana Punjab vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Ludhiana Punjab

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

ITA 259/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 69B

without properly and correctly appreciating the appellant’s submissions made during the course of the assessment as well as the first appeal proceedings. That order passed by the learned CIT(A) to the extent contested hereinabove, is 2. bad in law as well as on facts. 3. Brief Facts

Prahladbhai Kashiram Patel, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1858/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year : 2018-19 Prahladbhai Kashiram Patel Ito, Ward-1 Mandali Para Vs Gandhinagar. Krushanagar Society Mandali Vihar Mansa Gandhinagar. Pan : Bsapp3554 M (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Hardik Vora, Ar : Revenue By Shri Ravindra, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/12/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2025

Section 115BSection 250

filing the present appeal. 4. The ld.counsel for the assessee has further submitted that even there was delay of 107 days in filing first appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Similar reason have been assigned for delay in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A), and even there was non-representation

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Hirehal Jairaj Balram, Bengaluru

ITA 1961/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. T. Srinivasa, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 250Section 50C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY

Cowtown Infotech Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central-7(3), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee‟s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5845/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year : 2014-15 Cowtown Infotech Services Deputy Commissioner Limited, Of (As Successor On Amalgamation To Vs. Income Tax, Futuretech Constructions & Precast Central Circle-7(3), Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Private Limited), 412, Floor-4, Aayakarbhavan, 17G Vardhaman Chamber, Maharshikarve Road, Cawasji Patel Road, Mumbai-400020. Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan : Aaacc4889L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S.Mahajan, Ld. Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(7)Section 41(1)Section 43B

explained liability u/s. 41(1) 3. The Assessee though being aggrieved with the aforesaid additions/disallowances, challenged the same by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. However, as it appears from the para No. 2 of the impugned order that despite affording numerous opportunities, the Assessee made no compliance and/or

Chirag Chandrakant Mehta, Mumbai vs. Principal CIT-27, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4397/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Chirag Chandrakant Mehta Vs Principal Commissioner Of C/O Ca Himanshu Gandhi Income Tax-27, Mumbai 16Th Floor, D Wing, Trade World Building, Kamala Mills Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013 Pan: (Aabpm5091L) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 263Section 68

which is placed on record by the learned Counsel in the course of hearing before us. In this respect, learned Counsel pointed out that first appeal before ld. CIT(A) has been filed by the assessee against this effect giving order which is pending for disposal. 4. From the chronology ... evident that assessee made a choice for redressal of his grievance by not contesting on the revisionary order but to go for first appeal against the effect giving order passed based on the directions given in the revisionary order. It is now, after a lapse of 399 days that assessee

Personal Trust Injury for Rameez Ahmad, Delhi vs. Assessing Officer, Trust Ward, Civic Center, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4534/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4534/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 बनाम Personal Injury Trust For Assessing Officer, Rameez Ahmad, Vs. Trust Ward, Shop No.S-22, Greater Kailash-1, Civic Center, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadtp3647H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 57

there any compliance to the notices issued by the authorities below. Needless to say, the action of Ld. AO was confirmed at first appeals stage, leading to the present appeal. 3. The Ld. AR mentioned that the person looking after the affairs of this assessee is the father of Shri

Anuj Kumar Jain, Gurugram vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Gurugram

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4528/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4528/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Anuj Kumar Jain, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 355, Espace Nirvana County, Vs. Circle 1(1), Income Tax Office, Sector-50, South City-2, Hsiidc Complex, Shankar Chowk Road, Gurugram – 122018. Phase V, Udyog Vihar, Sector-19, Pan No.Acbpj2401K Gurugram, Haryana – 122016. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 54

have challenged the action of Ld. AO-CPC in disallowing a claim u/s 54 of the 2 Act. However, the aggrieved assessee filed the first appeal with a delay of 498 days. The Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal inlimne. 2.1 The assessee

Mukesh Jain, Gwalior vs. ACIT C-1, Gwalior

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 480/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2018-19, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte. 2. Brief facts state that the appellant assessee did not file any return of income for the year under consideration. Based on the information available ... same to the total income of assessee, vide assessment order dated 20.03.2023 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte. 4. The appellant assessee has filed this second appeal

Ajab Singh, Morena vs. Income Tax Officer 1 Morena, Morena

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 479/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2018-19, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay. 2. Perused records and heard learned representative of the assessee and learned departmental representative. 3. It transpires ... from the perusal of records that the assessee filed first appeal before the first appellate authority on 19.09.2024 against the assessment order dated 14.03.2023 by a delay of about 492 days. The reason cited for the delay in filing the first appeal before the learned CIT(A) are as under

Krishna Kumar Gupta, Etah vs. National Faceless Assessment Center, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 401/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 158BSection 250Section 250(6)Section 68

hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2014-15, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte. 2. At the very outset, it is noticed that this appeal has been filed on 06.08.2025 against the impugned order dated 24.03.2024 by a delay ... r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte. 5. The appellant assessee has filed this appeal on the ground that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the additions made

Smt.Mithlesh Gupta, Morena vs. ITO, Ward 1, Morena

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 241/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 250

hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for the assessment year 2017-18, wherein the Id. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee's first appeal. 2. During the course of hearing, learned authorized representative for assessee has submitted that the assessee does not wish to press the present appeal. Learned

Muzafar Ahmad Shah, Anantnag vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Anantnag

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 215/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vaseem Ahmad (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144

Rs.12.90 Lacs. The cash deposits of Rs.10.03 Lacs were treated as unexplained money and separately added to the income of the assessee. 3. During first appeal, it was stated by the assessee that it earned profit rate of less than 4% in subsequent years. However, this plea was rejected

Navjot Kaur, Subhanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kapurthala

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 306/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: first appellate authority and accordingly, the assessment was confirmed against which the assessee is in further appeal before Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Jain (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144Section 44ASection 69

added the deposits of Rs.23.79 Lacs as unexplained investment / money to the returned income of Rs.1.77 Lacs and framed the assessment. 3. During first appeal, the assessee, in statement of facts, stated that the assessee was running sweet shop cum restaurant and business receipts were deposited in the bank account

Vaghani Brothers, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1)(1), RKT, Rajkot

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

ITA 159/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.159/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) Vaghani Brothers Vs. The Ito, Ward – 2(1)(1), Rajkot Bus Stand Road, Nr. Buu Stand, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Dhoraji (Guj) - 360410 Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabfv5533C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav. Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

Dhorani 3] It is respectfully submitted that the appellant had no senior consultant or chartered accountant that the addition has been retained in the first appeal as the submission in this regard could not be filed. However, given the fact that the deposit of cash is fully explainable, the additional

Mr Shaikh Shakil Shaikh Ibrahim Bagwan, Jalgaon vs. ITO, Wrd-1(4), Jalgaon

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

ITA 2160/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2160/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Shaikh Shakil Shaikh Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Ibrahim Bagwan, Jalgaon Prop. Of Javed Vegetable Company (Jvc), Barbhai Galli, Bodwad-425310, Dist-Jalgaon Maharashtra Pan-Attpb3077C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250

dispute the grounds which do not arise from the impugned order passed by first appellate authority, irrespective of such grounds were raised in first appeal or not. 10. Considering the written submissions made and ground No. 4 raised before us, we deem it appropriate to remit back the legal issues

Syed Nazeer Syed Fayaz, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Erode

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

ITA 2189/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2189/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. S. Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Babitha, JCIT

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 250

faith, more particularly when the Appellant assailed the Reassessment Order by filing Rectification Application within 30 days, being time limit to have filed the first appeal, thereby taking a narrow, hyper-technical view. 5) Without prejudice, the Learned First Appellate Authority, despite reproducing the chart drawn by the Appellant narrating ... failing to consider the same holistically, given the fact that Covid Period formed a major part in the period of delay in filing first appeal.” 2. The assessee is an individual and filed a return of income for A.Y 2017-18 on 29.03.2018 admitting an income of Rs.3