← All Phrases

“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
87
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
59
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
55
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
40
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
32
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
30
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
28
citing judgments

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

Judgments citing first appeal

M/S Ambajee Jewellers Jabalpur, Jabalpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Jabalpur-1, Jabalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 21/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Nikhil Choudhary

For Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 68

learned CIT(A) cannot therefore, be valid and no revision proceedings may lie in respect of this amount settled and decided in first appeal. However, with regard to the sales made by M/s Ambaji Hallmark Gold, sufficient information has not been furnished before us to suggest that the sales

Gartner Ireland Limited, Ireland vs. ACIT( It), Circle - 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 6674/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2023-24 Gartner Ireland Limited, Asst. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Two Park Place, Income Tax-2(3)(2), Hatch Street, Vs. Room No.610, 6Th Floor, Dublin 2, Ireland. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Correspondence Address: Bandra Kurla Complex, First International Financial Bandra East, Centre, Level 2, Mumbai-400051. Plot No. C-54 & 55, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aaccg2919B (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Gaurav Chikhale For Revenue : Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-12-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer (Ao) Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Consequent To The Directions Given By The Dispute Resolution Panel [Drp], Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2023-24. 2 2. During The Course Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Submitted That The Present Appeal Has Been Filed Twice Due To Technical Oversight. In This Regard, The Ld.Ar Placed On Record A Request Letter Of The Assessee For Cancellation Of The Present Appeal, Filed On 17Th October, 2025, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav ChikhaleFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

ITAT to cancel the incorrectly processed appeal due to technical glitch, the Company has been informed to file a letter requesting cancellation of first appeal [ITA No. 6674/MUM/2025] processed erroneously. We therefore humbly request that the Hon'ble Tribunal cancel the earlier appeal filed on 17 October 2025, and consider

Nirvaza Enterprises Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assist. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-29, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5886/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153CSection 250

total capital is added in the hands of the assessee, thus, the total addition of Rs.1,38,91,372/- was made. 4. In first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee, both on legal as well as on factual aspects, therefore, the assessee

Nirvaza Enterprises Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assist. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 29, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5879/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153CSection 250

total capital is added in the hands of the assessee, thus, the total addition of Rs.1,38,91,372/- was made. 4. In first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee, both on legal as well as on factual aspects, therefore, the assessee

India Bullion and Jewellers Association Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6670/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrya N D Shri Bijayananda Prusethindia Bullion & Jewellers Association Ltd. Dcit, Cc-4(1)(1) Building 185, Kalbadevi Aayakar Bhavan H.O. Mumbai-400 002. Vs. M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aaact1449D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Khushali Desai, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2025 Date Of : 11/12/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) :-

For Appellant: Ms. Khushali Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, Ld. DR
Section 250

hold and which resulted into passing the assessment order dated 21.11.2023, whereby certain additions were made and therefore though the assessee filed first appeal challenging the said assessment order before Ld. Commissioner, however despite issuance of notice, made no compliance, which resulted into passing the impugned order as ex-parte

Capatus Infotech Private Limited, Thane vs. DCIT, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6669/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), However, Despite Affording 4 Opportunities, Neither Made Any Compliance Nor Filed Any Submissions Or Documents. Therefore, In The Constrained Circumstances, The Ld. Commissioner Decided The Appeal Filed By The Assessee As Ex-Parte & Allowed Partial Relief To The Amount Of Rs. 11,06,890/- & Affirmed The Rest Of The Disallowances.

Section 147Section 250

account of disallowances of salary, incentive and staff welfare and business promotion expenses. 4. Though the assessee challenged the said additions by filing first appeal before the ld. CIT(A), however, despite affording 4 opportunities, neither made any compliance nor filed any submissions or documents. Therefore, in the constrained circumstances

Haryana Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Panchkula vs. DCIT, Exemption, Sector 17

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 339/CHANDI/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 263

under section 143(3) r.w.s.263 and 144B dated 23.03.2022, the appellant filed an appeal before the Hon'ble CIT(A), NFAC on 22.04.2022. The first appeal proceedings are presently pending, wherein the appellant has already filed detailed written submissions on 19.08.2025 in response to the notice under section 250 dated

Haryana Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Panchkula vs. DCIT, Exemption, Chandigarh

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 338/CHANDI/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 263

under section 143(3) r.w.s.263 and 144B dated 23.03.2022, the appellant filed an appeal before the Hon'ble CIT(A), NFAC on 22.04.2022. The first appeal proceedings are presently pending, wherein the appellant has already filed detailed written submissions on 19.08.2025 in response to the notice under section 250 dated

Haryana Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Panchkula vs. CIT(Exemption), Chandigarh

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 63/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 263

under section 143(3) r.w.s.263 and 144B dated 23.03.2022, the appellant filed an appeal before the Hon'ble CIT(A), NFAC on 22.04.2022. The first appeal proceedings are presently pending, wherein the appellant has already filed detailed written submissions on 19.08.2025 in response to the notice under section 250 dated

Ekta Petrolium, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(4), Vadodara

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

ITA 1483/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 271ASection 68

another opportunity to the assessee to explain the source of cash deposits in the bank account and, thereafter, adjudicate the grounds taken in the first appeal on merits. The assessee is also directed to comply before the Ld. CIT(A) in the course of set aside proceeding and to bring

Ilyasbhai Kasambhai Rathod, Chhotaudepur vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(4) (Previously Ward-3(1)(5)), Vadodara

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

ITA 1311/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 44ASection 69A

Page 6 of 7 Officer had passed ex-parte order because of total non-compliance before him and the assessee had filed first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee should have been careful enough to ensure that proper compliance was made before the appellate authority

Madhusudan Reddy Pasham, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 429/HYD/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Sri A.P. Babu, Sr. A.R
Section 132(4)Section 37(1)

land transaction has been duly accounted in the assessee which is evident from the Profit & loss A/c filed before during the course of first appeal proceedings. 14. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.1,00,94,500/- towards un explained cash credits. 15. The learned

Madhusudan Reddy Pasham, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 428/HYD/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Sri A.P. Babu, Sr. A.R
Section 132(4)Section 37(1)

land transaction has been duly accounted in the assessee which is evident from the Profit & loss A/c filed before during the course of first appeal proceedings. 14. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.1,00,94,500/- towards un explained cash credits. 15. The learned

Madhusudan Reddy Pasham, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 427/HYD/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Sri A.P. Babu, Sr. A.R
Section 132(4)Section 37(1)

land transaction has been duly accounted in the assessee which is evident from the Profit & loss A/c filed before during the course of first appeal proceedings. 14. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.1,00,94,500/- towards un explained cash credits. 15. The learned

Kamisetty Ashok Kumar (HUF), Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1607/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri N Murali Krishna, CA
Section 144Section 147Section 234A

stake. 2. By dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay, the Learned CIT(A) deprived the Appellant of its statutory right to a first appeal, and consequently failed to adjudicate on the merits of the case. The Appellant should have been afforded the opportunity for a full hearing

Patel Engineering Limited (Successor of Patel Hydro Power Private Limited), Maharashtra vs. DCIT (TDS), Uttar Pradesh

In the result, assessee‟s appeal is allowed with the aforesaid direction

ITA 6534/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrya N D Shri Bijayananda Prusethpatel Hydro Power Private Ltd. Dcit(Tds) Patel Estate Road, S.V. Road Aayakar Bhavan Off. Jogeshwari West Vs. Sector 24 Mumbai-400 102. Noida, Up Pan : Aaacp2567L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mayur Kisnadwala Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2025 Date Of : 10/12/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) :-

For Appellant: Shri Mayur KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan
Section 154Section 201Section 250

this case, the assessee against the assessment order dated 28.2.2017, under section 201 of the Act, filed first appeal on 23.3.2017 before Ld. Commissioner, who somehow dismissed the same as ‘dismissed as withdrawn’ by considering the fact that the assessee has opted for Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme

Mohammed Sharif Nizamuddin Dalvi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5224/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 69

filed two appeals against the same penalty order under section 270A of Act, that too selecting the wrong section i.e. Section 271 in the first appeal filed and Section 147 in the second appeal filed. (pg 43 to 54) It is also to be noted that even the date

Mohammed Sharif Nizamuddin, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5223/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 69

filed two appeals against the same penalty order under section 270A of Act, that too selecting the wrong section i.e. Section 271 in the first appeal filed and Section 147 in the second appeal filed. (pg 43 to 54) It is also to be noted that even the date

A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Limited, Gurgaon vs. Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are all dismissed

ITA 4445/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4441 To 4445/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Ltd. Deputy/Assistant O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Commisioner Of Income Tax Arjun Marg, Dlf City Phase-1, (Tds), Dlf Qe S.O. Gurgaon, Haryana, India. Cpc, Aayakar Bhawan, Pan No.Rtka06546B Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 200ASection 249(3)Section 250

NFAC, Delhi, dated 30.05.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). In this case the first appeal was filed with a delay of2529 days and the Ld. CIT(A) found that the reason given for the said delay was not satisfactory

A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Limited, Gurgaon vs. Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are all dismissed

ITA 4444/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4441 To 4445/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Ltd. Deputy/Assistant O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Commisioner Of Income Tax Arjun Marg, Dlf City Phase-1, (Tds), Dlf Qe S.O. Gurgaon, Haryana, India. Cpc, Aayakar Bhawan, Pan No.Rtka06546B Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 200ASection 249(3)Section 250

NFAC, Delhi, dated 30.05.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). In this case the first appeal was filed with a delay of2529 days and the Ld. CIT(A) found that the reason given for the said delay was not satisfactory