“ first appeal ”

Sanjay Sawhney v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax

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.

116 Taxmann.com 701 · 2020 · High Court

Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

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.

156 ITR 54 · 1985 · High Court

Kiran Singh & Ors. v. Chaman Paswan & Ors.

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.

1 SCR 117 · 1955 · Supreme Court

CIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar

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.

74 ITR 41 · 1969 · Supreme Court

Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

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.

408 ITR 500 · 2018 · High Court

CIT v. Geo Industries and Insecticides (1) Pvt Ltd.

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.

96 TTJ 211 · 2005 · ITAT

Ramco Cements Ltd. v. DCIT

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.

373 ITR 146 · 2015 · High Court

ITA 6712/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

An assessee can make a claim of deduction for the first time before the appellate authorities.

Judgments citing first appeal

Pravahan Ventures LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 250Section 69B

mentioned in the gross loss, under the head “Fixed Assets” in ITR. 3. The Assessee being aggrieved, challenged the said addition by filing the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal of the Assesse by considering the peculiar facts and circumstancesspecific to the effect that the Assessee

Damyanti Shah, King Circle vs. Income Tax Officer 20(1)(1) Mumbai, Lalbaug

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

ITA 5879/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Us, The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That A Detailed & Cogent Explanation Justifying The Delay In Filing Of The First Appeal Was Duly Placed On Record Before The Ld. Cit(A). It Has Been Contended That The Delay Was Neither Deliberate Nor Contumacious, But Was Occasioned Due To Circumstances Beyond The Control Of The Assessee.

Section 144Section 147

Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that a detailed and cogent explanation justifying the delay in filing of the first appeal was duly placed on record before the ld. CIT(A). It has been contended that the delay was neither deliberate nor contumacious, but was occasioned

Kapsons Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 13(1), Delhi

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4464/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4464/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Kapsons Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, C/O Anuj Kapoor, D-26, South City-1, Vs. Circle 13(1), Gurgaon, Haryana. Delhi. Pan No.Aadck1513A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144Section 249(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

seen that the Ld. CIT(A)has not condoned a delay of 245 days in the filing of first appeal. It is recorded in the impugned order that “sufficient cause” has not been demonstrated, as required u/s 249(3) of the Act. Hence, the appeal was dismissed in limine ... case before the Ld. CIT(A) through remitting back the matter to him. It was averred that the reasons for delay in filing of first appeal were given at that stage and the same could be perused at pages 3, 4 & 5 of the impugned order. It was the submission

New Hansni Egg Centre, Sonebhadra vs. Income Tax Officer, Range - 3(3), Sonebhdra

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

ITA 114/VNS/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

year and the same was always accepted by the department. The assessment was completed on income of Rs.36,06,220/-. Against the assessment order first appeal was filed before CIT Appeal who vide order dated 29.09.2023 allowed the appeal in part and confirm the balance addition without providing reasonable opportunity

Jai Hind Souharda Pattin Sahakari Niyamit, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Belagavi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 168/PAN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji16 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2012-13 Jai Hind Souharda Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Bazar Road, Tal.: Hukkeri, Belgavi-591309 Pan:Aaajj0226F . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal[‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 253(1)Section 80P

condone delay in instituting the present appeal u/s 253(1) of the Act and proceed to adjudicate limited issue of ex-parte dismissal of first appeal by the Ld. CIT(A). Recording the same, advanced accordingly. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that; the assessee is a Cooperative

Shri Kamleshkumar Vallabhbhai Chanchdia, Village Sardhar, Dist. Rajkot vs. The ITO-Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot

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

ITA 156/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divetia, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

intricacies of tax laws, he has no permanent accountant or any staff and therefore the details could not be furnished in the course of first appeal proceedings; but the assesse is serious in the matter of proceedings; therefore it is prayed that the additional evidences as may be furnished

Sunil Kumar Moolchandani, Bhopal vs. ITO, 1(2), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 577/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

Section 147Section 250

Shri Ashish Porwal Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement 16.12.2025 smez1/O RDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 04.12.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment ... Hospital, Bhopal. Thus, Ld. AR submitted that the sole reason of non-compliances before CIT(A) leading to ex-parte dismissal of assessee’s first appeal by CIT(A) as well as occurrence of delay in filing present appeal before ITAT was the medical reason of assessee. Ld. AR submitted

Bhojpal Builders & Developers Pvt Ltd., Bhopal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax – 1(1), Bhopal

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 272/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2018-19 &

ITA 271/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

आदेश/ O R D E R Per Bench: The captioned four (4) appeals have been filed by assessee against four (4) separate orders of first-appeal dated 24.05.2024/24.05.2024/08.09.2023/ 14.08.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arise out of assessment-orders ... Paper-Book. Thus, Ld. AR submitted that the reasons of non-compliances before CIT(A) leading to ex-parte dismissal of assessee’s first appeals by CIT(A) as well as occurrence of delay in filing present appeals before ITAT are the reasons as mentioned in affidavit. Ld. AR submitted

Bhojpal Builders & Developers Pvt Ltd., Bhopal vs. Income Tax Officer – 1(5), Bhopal

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2018-19 &

ITA 270/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bhojpal Builders & Developers Pvt Ltd., Bhopal vs. DCIT/ACIT – 1(1), Bhopal

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2018-19 &

ITA 269/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bhojpal Builders & Developers Pvt Ltd., Bhopal vs. Additional/ Joint/ Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2018-19 &

ITA 5859/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Neelam Sanjay Mehta, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) A N D Shri Prabhash Shankar (Am) Smt. Neelam Sanjay Mehta Ito, Ward 19(2)(4), 2/78-80, Gora Gandhi Building, C.P. Mumbai/ Nfac, Delhi Tank Road Vs. Mumbai-400 004. Pan : Ayzpm8574E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. Ca Revenue By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/12/2025 O R D E R Per Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) :- This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.9.2024 Impugned Herein Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, Delhi (In Short Ld. Commissioner) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’) For A.Y. 2015-16. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Being An Individual Deriving Income From Salary, House Property, Capital Gain & Other Sources Had Declared Her Total Income At Rs. 4,63,750/- By Filing Her Return Of Income On Dated 1.9.2015 For The Assessment Year Under Consideration. Subsequently, Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Act, With The Reason That The Assessee Is One Of The Beneficiaries, Who Has Made Sale Of Shares, Wherein Trading Quantity Is Higher Than ‘Buy Trades Quantity’ Of The Scrip M/S. Toyam Industries Ltd. To The Tune Of Rs. 1,99,12,777/- & Accordingly, Statutory Notices Were Issued To The Assessee. In Response To Which, The Assessee Filed Relevant Details & The Documents, Such As Purchase Documents, Sale Contract Note, Bank Statement Etc. Qua Purchase & Sale Of Shares Of Scrip Namely M/S. Toyam Industries Ltd. .

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 155BSection 250Section 68

accordingly taxed the same under section 155BBE of the Act. 5. The assessee being aggrieved, challenged the said disallowance/addition by filing first appeal before Ld. Commissioner, however, of no avail, as the Ld. Commissioner on the similar footing, as of the Assessing Officer, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee, sustaining

Income Tax Officer 23(2)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug, Piramal Chambers Mumbai vs. Nine Dimensions Housing LLP, Bandra East, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue-Department stands dismissed

ITA 3686/MUM/2023[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Prabhash Shankar (Am) Ito 23(2)(1) Nine Dimensions Housing Llp Room No. 512 103/1St Floor, Renuka Chsl Piramal Chambers Vs. Kalanagar, Near Gurunanak Ss Rao Road, Lalbaug Hospital, Bandra East Mumbai-400 012. Mumbai-400 051. Pan : Aamfn1691A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Satyaprakash Singh, Ld. Ca Revenue By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui , Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/09/2025 Date Of : 16/12/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) :-

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui , Ld. SR. DR

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 37(1)Section 43(1)Section 68

assessment orders passed under section 143(3) dated 28.12.2019 and dated 14.3.2023 under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act, preferred first appeal before Ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order deleted both the additions of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-under section

Shri Naval Kishore Singh, Jammu vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jammu

In the result, the ground of appeal No

ITA 376/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Joginder Singh, C. A

Section 144Section 250Section 44A

crores (with an addition of Rs.1.94 crores on capital a/c plus Rs.14.97 lakhs on a/c of bank interest disallowed). 6. The matter carried in first appeal, has been adjudicated on the basis of the statement of facts and the grounds of appeal after considering materials on record on merits

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Balajee Mini Steels & Rerolling Private Limited, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1725/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Praveen Kishore &

ITA 1691/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

bogus therefore he made addition to the lume of Rs.862.86.046 The additions made by the assessing offcer was confirmed in the first appeal Being aggrieved with the decsuon of the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee fled appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT It was appreciated by the Hon ble Tinbunal that

DCIT, Central Circle- 4(3), Kolkata vs. Balajee Mini Steels & Rerolling Private Limited, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Praveen Kishore &

ITA 1690/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

bogus therefore he made addition to the lume of Rs.862.86.046 The additions made by the assessing offcer was confirmed in the first appeal Being aggrieved with the decsuon of the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee fled appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT It was appreciated by the Hon ble Tinbunal that

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Balajee Mini Steels & Rerolling Private Limited, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Praveen Kishore &

ITA 1689/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

bogus therefore he made addition to the lume of Rs.862.86.046 The additions made by the assessing offcer was confirmed in the first appeal Being aggrieved with the decsuon of the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee fled appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT It was appreciated by the Hon ble Tinbunal that

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Balajee Mini Steels & Rerolling Private Limited, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

ITA 1688/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

bogus therefore he made addition to the lume of Rs.862.86.046 The additions made by the assessing offcer was confirmed in the first appeal Being aggrieved with the decsuon of the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee fled appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT It was appreciated by the Hon ble Tinbunal that

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Balajee Mini Steels & Rerolling Private Limited, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Praveen Kishore &