← 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

Balmukund Cement & Roofings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1399/KOL/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2023-2024

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

Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Balmukund Sponge and Iron Private Limited; A.Y. 23-24 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

Balmukund Sponge & Iron Pvt. Ltd., Patna vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1398/KOL/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2023-2024

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

Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Balmukund Sponge and Iron Private Limited; A.Y. 23-24 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

Balmukund Sponge & Iron Pvt. Ltd., Patna vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1397/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

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

Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Balmukund Sponge and Iron Private Limited; A.Y. 23-24 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

Balmukund Sponge & Iron Pvt. Ltd., Patna vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1396/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Balmukund Sponge and Iron Private Limited; A.Y. 23-24 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

Balmukund Sponge & Iron Pvt. Ltd., Patna vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1395/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

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

Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Balmukund Sponge and Iron Private Limited; A.Y. 23-24 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

Pankaj Manohar Pardhi, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 42(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6591/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year: 2016-17 Pankaj Manohar Pardhi, Income Tax Officer, B-502, Yash Paradise, Sector 8, Vs. Ward 42 (3)(1), Airoli, Navi Mumbai-400708. Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai - 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.12.2023, 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. 2016-17. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is Delay Of 168 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal, On Which The Assessee By Filing A Duly Sworn Affidavit Dated 13-09-2025 Has Claimed That The Assessee Has Shifted To Dubai & Thus For The Last Many Years Is Not Residing In India. However, During The Recent Trip In India, The Assessee Became Aware About The Ongoing Appeal Proceedings & Passing Of The Impugned Order & Therefore, The Delay Of 168 Days Has Been Occurred, Which Was Neither Intentional Nor Mala-Fide But Because Of The Aforesaid Reasons.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Ld. SR. D.R
Section 14Section 147Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

additions of Rs. 54,55,800/- and Rs. 3,34,43,648/- under Section 69-A of the Act, against which the assessee preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order dismissed the same for non-appearance of the Assessee/non-prosecution by the Assessee, in limine

Kanha Education Society, Gwalior vs. ITO Exemption, Gwalior

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 407/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra08 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2018-19, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 2. Brief facts state that the appellant is an educational society registered under the provisions of M.P. Societies Registration Act, 1973. The main and dominant object ... dated 10.03.2020. The same was rejected by the Assessing Officer, vide order dated 20.03.2024 passed u/s. 154 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved assessee filed first appeal against the order dated 20.03.2024 passed u/s. 154 of the Act, before Ld. CIT(Appeals), which was dismissed. 4. Appellant assessee has approached this

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, City Centre, Gwalior vs. Sheeladevi Narwariya, Gwalior Road Mehagaon

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 403/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra08 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69A

hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2017-18, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has partly allowed assessee’s first appeal. 2. Briefly stating, the facts are that the assessee e-filed her return of income on 28.10.2017, declaring total income of Rs.27,89,960/-. The case ... income of the assessee u/s. 69A of the Act apart from other additions, which are not under challenge before us. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals), who observed that the Assessing Officer has taken the figure of cash sales during the demonetization period only. Hence, learned

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra vs. Adity Pandey, Agra

In the result, both the appeals ITA No

ITA 384/AGR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Agra08 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 69ASection 80C

hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2022-23, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has partly allowed assessee’s first appeals by deleting the addition of Rs.13,61,20,122/- made by the Assessing Officer, vide assessment order dated 21.03.2024 passed ITA No. 383 & 384/Agr/2025 ... Penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act were also initiated against the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals). Learned CIT(Appeals) found that the appellant assessee is a salaried person and was working as Executive Engineer of EDD-II, Ghazipur(PVVNL

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra vs. Aditya Pandey, Agra

In the result, both the appeals ITA No

ITA 383/AGR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Agra08 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 69ASection 80C

hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2022-23, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has partly allowed assessee’s first appeals by deleting the addition of Rs.13,61,20,122/- made by the Assessing Officer, vide assessment order dated 21.03.2024 passed ITA No. 383 & 384/Agr/2025 ... Penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act were also initiated against the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals). Learned CIT(Appeals) found that the appellant assessee is a salaried person and was working as Executive Engineer of EDD-II, Ghazipur(PVVNL

Bipin Babu Agrawal, Mathura vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Agra

In the result, appeals ITA Nos

ITA 380/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra08 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154

added to the income of the assessee, vide assessment order dated 30.09.2021 passed u/s.143(3)/153A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals), before whom, it was pleaded by the assessee that the additions made vide assessment order dated 30.09.2021 are not based

Bipin Bau Agrawal, Mathura vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Agra

In the result, appeals ITA Nos

ITA 379/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra08 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154

added to the income of the assessee, vide assessment order dated 30.09.2021 passed u/s.143(3)/153A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals), before whom, it was pleaded by the assessee that the additions made vide assessment order dated 30.09.2021 are not based

Bipin Babu Agrawal, Mathura vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Agra

In the result, appeals ITA Nos

ITA 378/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra08 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154

added to the income of the assessee, vide assessment order dated 30.09.2021 passed u/s.143(3)/153A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals), before whom, it was pleaded by the assessee that the additions made vide assessment order dated 30.09.2021 are not based

Bipin Babu Agrawal, Mathura vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Agra

In the result, appeals ITA Nos

ITA 377/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra08 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154

added to the income of the assessee, vide assessment order dated 30.09.2021 passed u/s.143(3)/153A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals), before whom, it was pleaded by the assessee that the additions made vide assessment order dated 30.09.2021 are not based

Preeti Gupta Legal Heir Dinesh Gupta, Jhansi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi

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

ITA 352/AGR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Agra08 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2022-23

Section 143(2)Section 250

undisclosed income of the assessee from business and added to the income of the assessee, vide assessment order dated 29.02.2024. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before learned CIT(Appeals), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte. 2 | P a g e 4. Assessee has preferred this second appeal

Javeed Khan Ahemad Khan, Yawal vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Jalgaon

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

ITA 2738/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. Rathi (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

adjudicated. 9. 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 [(2025) 171 taxmann.com ... 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. 10. In the light of the above judgment, we are of the considered view, the issues raised in the instant appeal deserve

Yudhishtir Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-42(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 6317/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Yudhishtir Cooperative Housing Ito Ward, Jao Mum-W-42(1)(4) Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra East, Society Ltd. Anand Nagar, N.L. Complex Dahisar Mumbai- 400051 (East), Mumbai- 400 068 Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Vidyadhar Khandekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (SR. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by not condoning the delay of 1239 days in filing the first appeal, for the reasons that the assessee has failed to substantiated that there was “sufficient cause” for the delay in filing the appeal before ... opportunity to present its case before the Ld. CIT(A) after duly 3 Yudhishtir Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. condoning the delay in filing the first appeal, for the reason that Hon’ble Apex Court and various High Courts have taken a liberal view in condoning the delay in filing

Swami Darshanand Institute of Management and Technology, Haridwar vs. ITO, W-1(3)(1), Haridwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 129/DDN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun05 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalswami Darshanand Institute Of Income Tax Officer, Management & Technology, Ward-1(3)(1), Gurukul Mahavidyalaya, Vs. Haridwar. P.O. Gurukul Kangi, Jwalpur, Haridwar-249407. Pan:Aalas6789G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Shalil Agarwal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Salies Gupta, Adv. & Shri Uma Shankar, Adv. Department By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘The Cit(A) In Short) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 19.05.2025 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Society Engaged In Imparting Education. The Ao Based On The Information That Assessee Has Deposited Cash Of Rs.93,10,000/- In The Saving Bank Account Maintained With A Central Bank Of India Which Is Not Declared & Thus Case Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. Thereafter, Submissions Were Made By The Assessee Wherein It Is Claimed That This Account Pertained To Other Society & All The Deposits Are Duly

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

claim of the assessee and made the addition of Rs.93,10,000/- u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money of the assessee. In first appeal, the assessee claimed that the account related to some other society and not pertained to the assessee society. However

Pagadala Velugonda Reddy, Durg vs. ACIT-1(1), Bhilai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 726/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Raipur05 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.726/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Pagadala Velugonda Reddy Lig 284, Hudco, Bhilai-490 009 (C.G.) Pan: Abmpv7318K

For Appellant: Shri Yash Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 69

treating entire cash deposits as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act. 3. That aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee had filed first appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and detailed written submission a/w. documentary evidence were filed as submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. However

M/S Vatsana Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2172/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalasst. Cit, M/S Vatsana Technologies Pvt. Circle-4(1), Gurugon, Ltd., Vs. Haryana. C/O Malik & Co. (Advisors & Advocates-Since 1927), 305/7, Thapar Nagar, Meerut-250001, Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Aadcv7329R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Krishna Kumar Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Gurugaon (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short), Dated 29.11.2018 In Appeal No. 630/17-18, A.Y. For Ay 2015-16. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. The Ld. Sr. Dr Supports The Order Of The Lower Authorities & Requested For The Confirmation Of The Same.

income on interest free advances. Besides this, AO also disallowed the interest on the unsecured loan paid to M/s Mysore Finlease Pvt. Ltd. IN first appeal ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition towards loan of Rs. 20.00 lacs taken from M/s Mysore Finlease Pvt. Ltd. and further deleted