“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

Mr Ramsoch Dashrath Yadav, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-8(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2034/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2034/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mr.Ramsoch Dashrath Yadav, V 1.The Income Tax Officer, Tayappa Chawl, Near Urdu S Ward-8(2), Pune. School, Kharalwadi, Pimpri, Pune – 411018. 2.Assistant/Dy.Commission Er Of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. Pan: Acypy0615P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Dr.Prashant Munot Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule-Jcit(Through Virtual Hearing) Date Of Hearing 26/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19 Dated 30.06.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under

Section 131(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

Production of essential Evidence and documents on record by the Respondents, before proceeding further on adjudication in the matter; 2 and in disposing the first appeal exparte against the Appellant without any opportunity of hearing. ITA No.2034/PUN/2025 [A] C) On Merits: Correctness of additions based on adhoc-estimated Net Profit ... assessment, the Notice issued under section 148 of the Act, the ITA No.2034/PUN/2025 [A] assessment proceedings conducted, the impugned assessment order passed, and the first appeal order confirming the said assessment order, all are valid and sustainable in law, in that event 1) The Additional Evidence being filed on record

ITO, Malda vs. Dipali Singha Roy, South Dinajpur

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1331/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 145(3)Section 250Section 270A

have gone 3 Dipali Singha Roy through the records before us. It is obvious that the quantum matter is pending as of now at first appeal stage and hence the impugned order is set aside and this issue is remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh

Bai Kanbai WD/O Seth Padamsi Dhanji Charitable Trust, Mumba vs. ITO (Exem) Ward 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for

ITA 6265/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

Section 143(3)

addition of ₹80,08,000/- on account of alleged non-disclosure of sale consideration arising from transfer of immovable property. 2.1 In the first appeal, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [“Ld. CIT(A)"] dismissed the appeal in-limine, declining to adjudicate the issue on merits on the ground

Shree Raj Crystal Co Op Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Waqrd 42(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 5769/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm Shree Raj Crystal Co-Op. Asst. Director Of Income Housing Society Ltd. Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru Royal Complex, Chandawarkar Vs. Road & Eksar Road Junction, Borivali West, Mumbai 400091. Pan/Gir No. Aaas7159K (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhavesh Gala/Devang Divech Respondent By : Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2025 O R D E R Per Narender Kumar Choudhry, J M:

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh Gala/DevangFor Respondent: Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, SR

Section 143(1)Section 2(19)Section 250Section 70Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(d)

Shree Raj Crystal Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. 3. Thus, the assessee being aggrieved challenged the said addition/disallowance by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, could not get any relief and therefore the assessee being aggrieved has preferred instant appeal. 4. Heard the parties and perused the material

ACIT 14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5722/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us.

Section 143(3)Section 263

therefore, become rendered academic and devoid of legal substratum. 3. We also find that the ld. CIT(A), while adjudicating the first appeal, had recorded an identical conclusion and dismissed the Department’s challenge on the ground that the assessment order passed pursuant to the now-quashed revision order cannot

Stella D Souza, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 31(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5719/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14 Ms. Stella D Souza, Ito 31(2)(1), B/102 Diptigreen, Kautilya Bhavan Opp Bombay Cambridg School Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Chakala, Andheri (E), Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 099 Mumbai - 400099 Pan: Acjpd4624Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri S.C. Agarwal, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Addl/Jcit(A) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2013-14. 2. In This Case, The Assessee Being An Individual & Director In M/S. Silver Global Services Pvt. Ltd. Had Earned Interest Income Of Rs.6,48,842/- From Fixed Deposits With Model Co-Operative Bank Ltd. & In Order To Avoid Premature Encashment Of Fd Had Taken Loan Against Such Fd From Model Co-Operative Bank Ltd. & Paid Interest To The Said Bank To The Tune Of Rs.8,39,626/- & Since The Interest Paid Was More Than The Interest Received, Therefore, Has Not Shown Such Interest Earned.

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Agarwal, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 250

being undisclosed interest income and added in the income of the Assessee. 6. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner and mainly focused that Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Raj Kumari Agarwal Vs. DCIT

Ravindra Kumar Vishwanath Yadav, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4960/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2015-16 Mr. Ravindrakumar Vishwanath The Ito, Ward 28 (2)(1), Yadav, Tower 6, Vashi Railway Room No.1118, Samta Nagar Vs. Station Commercial Sector 1A, Airoli, Navi, Complex, Vashi, Mumbai – 400708 Navi Mumbai – 400703. Pan – Acbpy0748G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Dharan Gandhi. Revenue By : Shri Sunil Mathews, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.03.2024, 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. 2015-16. 2. In This Case, The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Vide Assessment Order 11.03.2024 U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144 B Of The Act, Has Made The Addition Of Rs. 14,75,000/- Being Variation In Respect Of Unexplained Investment U/S. 69 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Mathews, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 3Section 69

being variation in respect of unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. 3. The Assessee, thus being aggrieved, challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, 2 Mr. Ashwinkmar Krishnala Thanawala could not get any relief, as the Ld. Commissioner affirmed the aforesaid addition

Paschion Restaurants Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4335/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Years: 2013-14]

Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 250

delayed by 2061 days. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) in not condoning the delay in filing the first appeal before ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 2061 days. All the grounds of appeal are thus dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the appeal

Paschion Restaurants Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4334/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalita No. 4331 To 4334/Del/2025 [Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15]

Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 250

delayed by 2052 days. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) in not condoning the delay in filing the first appeal before ld. CIT(A) which is delayed by 2052 days. 10. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 11. With respect

Paschion Restaurants Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commission of Income Tax, Ghaziabad

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4333/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalita No. 4331 To 4334/Del/2025 [Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15]

Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 250

Paschion Restaurants Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4332/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalita No. 4331 To 4334/Del/2025 [Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15]

Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 250

Paschion Restaurants Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4331/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalita No. 4331 To 4334/Del/2025 [Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15]

Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 250

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs. M/S Ace Mega Structure Private Limited, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4115/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

Section 147Section 68

made the payment of the said cash as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 14. Ld. AR further submits that in first appeal, before Ld. CIT(A), it was claimed by the assessee that since reassessment proceedings under challenged were initiated u/s 148 on the basis

Ace Mega Structures Private Limited, Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT/ACIT Cen Cir, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4067/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Section 147Section 68

Joginder Kumar & Sons HUF, Panipat vs. PCIT Rotak, Rotak

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1975/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwaljoginder Kumar & Sons Huf Pcit, 352/6, Near S D Modern School, Rohtak. Panipat-132103. Vs. Pan- Aachj6257L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dhurv Goel, Ca Department By Shri Pradumna Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak (‘The Pcit’ In Short) Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 21.03.2025 Wherein The Ld. Pcit Held The Assessment Order As Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue In Terms Of Explanation 2 Of Section 263 & Direct The Ao To Conduct Fresh Enquiries & Passed The Speaking Order.

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 37(1)Section 69C

Revenue. Before us, the 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 after making proper

Kasturi Devi, Etah vs. Income Tax Officer, Etah

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 7/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2020-21, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 2. At the very outset, we notice that this second appeal was filed on 03.01.2025 against impugned order dated 06.05.2024 by a delay of about 182 days ... evidence, we do not find any error of law or fact in the impugned order passed by ld. CIT(Appeals) in dismissing assessee’s first appeal. Aforesaid question is accordingly determined against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. Assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed

Rahul Jain, Indore vs. ITO Ward-1, Morena

In the result, both the appeals ITA No

ITA 421/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2017-18, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeals, confirming the assessment order dated ITA No. 420 & 421/Agr/2025 06.12.2019 passed u/s. 144 of the Act and affirming the penalty order dated 17.02.2022 passed u/s. 271AAC ... assessment order dated 06.12.2019 passed u/s. 144 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(Appeals), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte for want of any submission made by assessee in the first appellate proceedings. 6. Assessee has approached this Tribunal in second appeal

Rahul Jain, Indore vs. ITO Ward-1, Morena

In the result, both the appeals ITA No

ITA 420/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

Ravinder Singh 402Sai Deep Apartment 26-Ram Bagh Colony Shinde Ki Chawni Lashkar Gwalior, Gawalir vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2) Gwalior Aaykar Bhawan City Centre Gwalior, Gwalior

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals

ITA 419/AGR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

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

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

date and added the alleged cash deposit of Rs.57,85,000/- as unexplained cash deposit u/s. 69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals), who found that the period for filing the return in response to section 148 of the Act fell between

Ravinder Singh 402 Sai Deep Apartment 29 Ram Bagh Colony Shinde Ki Chawni Lashkar Gwalior, Gwalior vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2) Gwalior Aaykar Bhawan City Centre Gwalior, Gwalior

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals

ITA 418/AGR/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

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

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A