“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

Nilesh Jayantilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Delhi, Juridis. AO- the ITO, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 907/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

sufficient ground. When the Assessing 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 ... total addition of Rs.6,64,20,189/- made in the assessment order and accordingly penalty of Rs.2,21,40,063/- was imposed. In first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) had directed to re-compute the penalty in respect of addition of Rs.3,29,98,210/- as upheld by him. Since

Daulat Savala Narute, Pune vs. ITO Ward 5(20, Pune

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

ITA 520/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.520/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Respondent: Shri Udol Raj Singh

Section 147

adjudication. 6. 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. 7. Under these given facts and circumstances, since the legal issues has been raised for the first time before this Tribunal which though

Brijesh Chandwani, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle -6(1), Hyderabad

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed on this ground alone

ITA 1527/HYD/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

For Appellant: CA Pawan Kumar ChakrapaniFor Respondent: Sri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. AR

Section 133ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD ‘A’ BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN

Rohit Chambers Premises Coop Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 5812/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Rohit Chambers Premises Assessing Officer, Coop Society Limited, Ward 26(1)(1), Janmabhoomi Marg, Kautilya Bhavan, G Block Vs. Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai Bkc, Bandra Kurla – 400001. Complex, Bandra (E), Pan – Aaaar44550K. Mumbai 400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Satish Mody, Ld. Ca Revenue By : Shri Praveen K. Srivastava, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.03.2021, 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. 2018-19. 2. In This Case, The Assessee By Filing Its Return Of Income On Dated 19.09.2018 Had Declared Gross Total Income Of Rs.26,69,680/- Under The Head Income From The Other Sources & Claimed The Same As Exempt Under Section 80P(2)(D) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Praveen K. Srivastava, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 119Section 139Section 2(19)Section 250Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(d)

Society Limited deposits maintained with Saraswat Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank. 4. The Assessee being aggrieved with the said addition preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who by impugned order affirmed the aforesaid addition by dismissing appeal of the Assessee on various grounds, inter-alia that

Smt Laxmidevi Somani Public Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption Ward 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5786/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali Parekh, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Jumale (Sr. DR)

Section 11Section 119Section 143(1)Section 250

application before the CPC, successively. However, could not get any relief and ultimately on being advised by the known tax consultant, the Assessee preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner but with a delay. 6. This Court thus observes that facts and issues involved are almost similar to the case ... case referred to above has also dealt with identical delay and allowed the relief” is inclined to condone the delay occurred in filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, subject to deposit of Rs. 11000/- in the Revenue Department, under ‘other heads’ within 15 days of the receipt

Orange City Recreation Resort Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-7(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5698/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Joshi (Sr. DR)

Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Rajesh Bhutoria for the services availed, as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act. 5. The assessee challenged the said additions by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who not only affirmed the addition on legal aspect, but in fact also on merit, by holding as under

ITO-19(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ashwinkumar Krishnala Thanawala, Mumbai

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

ITA 5444/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pushkaraj Bhangepateil, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

credit u/s. 68 of the Act, on account of sale receipt of share transaction. 4. The Assessee being aggrieved against the aforesaid addition filed first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who by considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, observed as under: i. Assessee was an individual

Vivek Varma, Mumbai vs. ITO-41(4)(4) Erstwhile ITO -31(1)(9), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 5171/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhryvivek Varma Ito - 41(4)(4), Mumbai (Erstwhile Ito – 26, Kytes India, Om Heera 31(1)(9), Mumbai. Panna Oshiwara Link Road, Vs. Andheri (West), Mumbai – 8Th Floor, Kautilya 400102. Bhavan, Mumbai – 400051. Pan: Adxpv5617Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 271ASection 68

added to the total income of the Assessee u/s. 68 of the Act. 4. The Assessee being aggrieved against the said order, filed first appeal before Ld. Commissioner, however could not get succeeded, as the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal filed by the Assessee and therefore, the Assessee being aggrieved

Sandeep Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO - Ward 1, Panipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4348/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Sandeep Kumar, Vs Ito C/O-B-50, Lgf, South Ward-1 Extension Part-Ii, Panipat New Delhi -110049 Pan-Aueps5626A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shantanu Jain, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Khanna, Adv. Shri Gurjeet Singh, Ca Respondent By Shri Khitesh Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2025 Order

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 69C

together for consideration. 9. Before us, Ld. AR submits that the AO has made the addition by holding the purchases as bogus against which first appeal is pending before the ld. CIT(A). As per ld. AR, the AO has taken a plausible view by disallowing the purchases

Sai Corp Creations Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, C R Building

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 3451/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalsai Corp Creations Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit D-8/2, Vasantvihar, Circe-22(2), C. R. Building, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aatcs7145L Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Tanvi Khurana, Ca Revenue By Sh. Piyush Tripathi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025

Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

were carried out the CPC-Bangluru and intimation was issued enhancing the assessed income in the captioned assessment years. The CIT(A) in the first appeal has sustained the adjustments towards belated deposits of employees’ contribution to PF/ESIC in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme

Poonam Sabharwal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-28(5), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1183/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

were carried out the CPC-Bangluru and intimation was issued enhancing the assessed income in the captioned assessment years. The CIT(A) in the first appeal has sustained the adjustments towards belated deposits of employees' contribution to PF/ESIC in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme

Poonam Sabharwal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-28(5), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1182/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

were carried out the CPC-Bangluru and intimation was issued enhancing the assessed income in the captioned assessment years. The CIT(A) in the first appeal has sustained the adjustments towards belated deposits of employees' contribution to PF/ESIC in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme

Aligarh Wine Shop Co, Aligarh vs. ITO Ward 4(1)(1), Aligarh

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

ITA 387/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 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. At the very outset, learned AR has drawn the attention of the Bench that this appeal was filed on 01.08.2025 against the impugned order ... vide assessment order dated 13.04.2021. 2 | P a g e 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals), who dismissed assesee’s first appeal ex parte. 5. Assessee has preferred this second appeal before this Tribunal on the ground that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming

Pramjeet Kaur, Mandi Dabwali vs. Income Tax Officer, Mansa

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

ITA 293/ASR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. A. K. Jindal, C. A

Section 147Section 250Section 274

because his income from agricultural activities is exempted from Income tax. He further submitted that the appointed counsel has not represented the matter in first appeal, which has resulted in this situation. As such, he prayed that in the instant case, the matter may please be remanded back

Malkiat Singh Dhaliwal, Ferozepur City vs. ITO, Ferozepur Cantt

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 239/ASR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 239/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Malkiat Singh Dhaliwal S/O Vs. Ito, Joginder Singh 37, Dashmesh Ferozepur. Nagar, Near Baghi Hospital Ferozepur City Punjab. [Pan:-Aalpd0965E] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By None (Adjournment Application) Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 12.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

Section 143(3)Section 148

year but added back the balance amount of Rs. 4.02 lakhs as unexplained investment for purchase of land. 5. The matter carried in first appeal has been partly allowed by the Ld. first appellate authority who deleted an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- being satisfactorily I.T.A. No. 239/Asr/2025 3 Assessment

Ghulam Mohd Rather, Ashmuji vs. ITO, Anantnag

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

ITA 172/ASR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: None (Written submissions)

Section 147Section 148Section 250

arise and the grievance raised by the assessee regarding non receipt of notice of hearing at the assessment stage as well as at the first appeal stage are found to be incorrect. 10. However, considering the factual aspect of the matter that the assessee is engaged in poultry business

Ghulam Mohd Rather, Ashmuji vs. ITO, Annatnag

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

ITA 171/ASR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: None (Written submissions)

Section 147Section 148Section 250

Sonali Mahendra Naik Gaunekar, Panaji vs. Asst. Unit, NFAC, I. T. Department, Delhi

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 312/PAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Naveen Kumar [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(1)Section 263Section 50CSection 50C(1)

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 conclusively either ‘confirming or reducing or enhancing or annulling’ the assessment. Further while doing so the Ld. NFAC in view of the mandatory provisions

Shri Jyoti Multipurpose Souhard Sahakari Sangh Nyt Examba, Examba, Chikodi, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Nippani, Belagavi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 172/PAN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2022-23 Shri Jyoti Multipurpose Souharda Sangh Niyamit Examba, Chikodi, Belgavi-591244 Pan:Aabas2730D . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Shivanand Halbhavi [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ish Gupta [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 144Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)Section 253(1)

caused in instituting the present appeal u/s 253(1) of the Act and proceed to adjudicate the limited issue of ex-parte dismissal of first appeal by the Ld. NFAC. Recording the same, advanced accordingly. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that; the assessee is a Multipurpose Cooperative ... literally redoing the assessment de-novo. This by very means the statute in clear terms has provided a particular manner to deal with the first appeal in relation to best judgment assessment. Therefore dealing the first appeal arising out of best-judgement assessment passed

Bmg Calcuttawala Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. AO CPC (TDS), ITO TDS(1) Indore, Indore

Appeals are allowed”

ITA 136/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 220(2)Section 234ESection 246ASection 250Section 253

vide Ack. No. 033810100174055. 2.5 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned intimation order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the 1st appeal of the assessee on the grounds and reasons stated therein