← 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

Mahesh Chandra Agarwal, Bhopal vs. CIT(A), Delhi

Appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 176/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimahesh Chandra Agrawal, Cit(A), बनाम/ Prop. M/S Swarn Pushp Nfac, Vs. Jwellers, Delhi Sarafa Chowk, Indore (Pan:Aavpa8254B) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gowind Rinwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned assessment order” prefers the 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 ... Agarwal ITA No.176/Ind/2025 - A.Y. 2014-15 Relief Fund”. The assessee to show the receipt of such payment before the Ld. CIT(A) before the first appeal on denovo basis is taken up for hearing on denovo basis as directed aforesaid. 5. Order 5.1 In the premises drawn

Bny Mellon International Operations (India) Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. I.T.O, CPC Bangaluru, Banguluru

ITA 2706/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh S. Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 234CSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Sugrabahen Umer Bhorania, Mumbai vs. Ward 20(3)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers

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

ITA 5741/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Sugrabahen Umer Bhorania Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 6Th Floor, Flat 602, Murga Giran 20(3)(1), Mumbai Chs, Grant Road (E), Mumbai Piramal Chambers, Mumbai 400008 400012 Pan: (Cddpb8620D) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Ms. Shruti Kalyanikar-Advocate Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1078510218(1) Dated 15.07.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income Tax Officer Ward 20(3)(1), Mumbai U/S. 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 23.09.2024 For Ay 2016-17. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Penalty Of Rs. 45,10,345/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & The 2

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti Kalyanikar-AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 271(1)(c)

credited. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) where initiated on both the additions for concealment of particulars of income by the assessee. Assessee moved first appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on these additions which is pending for disposal by the said authority. 4. In the meanwhile, ld. AO proceeded ... income-tax 3 ITA No. 5741/Mum/2025 AY 2016-17 Sygrabahen Umer Bhorania sought to be evaded. Against this penalty imposition, assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. CIT(A). While adjudicating on the first appeal against the penalty order, ld. CIT(A) in paragraph 3.1 observed that in the matter

Rotary Club of Bombay North Island Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT Exemption Ward 2(2), Mubmai

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5673/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us Is Directed Against The Dismissal Of The First Appeal Solely On The Ground Of Delay, The Learned First Appellate Authority Having Declined To Condone The Same Despite A Detailed Affidavit Setting Out Reasons Which, According To The Assessee, Constituted A Reasonable & Bona Fide Explanation.

Section 11(3)Section 143(1)Section 28

Rotary Club of Bombay North Island Charitable Trust 2. The grievance raised before us is directed against the dismissal of the first appeal solely on the ground of delay, the learned first appellate authority having declined to condone the same despite a detailed affidavit setting out reasons which, according

ACIT Central Circle 3(2), Mumbai vs. Greenscape Developers Private Limited, Navi Mumbai

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the Revenue in respect of the three assessees are dismissed

ITA 4687/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain and Prateek Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 133ASection 68

reassessment proceedings in respect of unsecured loans taken from entities belonging to the Shri. Pravin Kumar Jain Group is as under: 3.2. In the first appeal before the ld. CIT(A), assessee made elaborate submissions. It was submitted that assessee is engaged in the business of real estate and shown

ACIT Central Circle 3(2), Mumbai vs. Greenscape Developers Private Limited, Navi Mumbai

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the Revenue in respect of the three assessees are dismissed

ITA 4675/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain and Prateek Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 133ASection 68

reassessment proceedings in respect of unsecured loans taken from entities belonging to the Shri. Pravin Kumar Jain Group is as under: 3.2. In the first appeal before the ld. CIT(A), assessee made elaborate submissions. It was submitted that assessee is engaged in the business of real estate and shown

ACIT Central Circle 3(2), Mumbai vs. Greenscape Developers Private Limited, Navi Mumbai

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the Revenue in respect of the three assessees are dismissed

ITA 4593/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain and Prateek Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 133ASection 68

reassessment proceedings in respect of unsecured loans taken from entities belonging to the Shri. Pravin Kumar Jain Group is as under: 3.2. In the first appeal before the ld. CIT(A), assessee made elaborate submissions. It was submitted that assessee is engaged in the business of real estate and shown

Quantum Real Estate & Property Development India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-11(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4591/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Prabhash Shankara.Ys: 2009-10

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68

advance of Rs. 1,55,00,000/- as accommodation entry and made addition u/s 68 of the Act. 8. During course of assessment and first appeal, the assessee had furnished the copies of Ledger account, Confirmation of account, PAN details, Certificate of incorporation and I.T. acknowledgement receipt of the purchaser

ACIT Central Circle 3(2), Mumbai vs. Greenscape Kalpana Struct Con, Thane

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the Revenue in respect of the three assessees are dismissed

ITA 4568/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain and Prateek Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 133ASection 68

reassessment proceedings in respect of unsecured loans taken from entities belonging to the Shri. Pravin Kumar Jain Group is as under: 3.2. In the first appeal before the ld. CIT(A), assessee made elaborate submissions. It was submitted that assessee is engaged in the business of real estate and shown

ACIT Central Circle 3(2), Mumbai vs. Greenscape Realty LLP, Mumbai

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the Revenue in respect of the three assessees are dismissed

ITA 4346/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain and Prateek Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 133ASection 68

reassessment proceedings in respect of unsecured loans taken from entities belonging to the Shri. Pravin Kumar Jain Group is as under: 3.2. In the first appeal before the ld. CIT(A), assessee made elaborate submissions. It was submitted that assessee is engaged in the business of real estate and shown

ACIT Central Circle 3(2), Mumbai vs. Greenscape Realty LLP, Mumbai

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the Revenue in respect of the three assessees are dismissed

ITA 4285/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain and Prateek Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 133ASection 68

reassessment proceedings in respect of unsecured loans taken from entities belonging to the Shri. Pravin Kumar Jain Group is as under: 3.2. In the first appeal before the ld. CIT(A), assessee made elaborate submissions. It was submitted that assessee is engaged in the business of real estate and shown

Asst Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 3 2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Greenscape Developers Pvt Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the Revenue in respect of the three assessees are dismissed

ITA 3698/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain and Prateek Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 133ASection 68

reassessment proceedings in respect of unsecured loans taken from entities belonging to the Shri. Pravin Kumar Jain Group is as under: 3.2. In the first appeal before the ld. CIT(A), assessee made elaborate submissions. It was submitted that assessee is engaged in the business of real estate and shown

Nirmala Devi, Sonipat vs. Income Tax Officer, Sonipat

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

ITA 4840/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandranirmala Devi Vs Income Tax Officer 212-A, Adarsh Nagar, Atlas Road, Sonipat, Soinpat, Haryana Haryana Pan: Aaspd0946J Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Akshat Sharma, Adv Revenue By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 24/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025 Order

Section 144BSection 144aSection 147

Appeal of the Assessee has been dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) on delay in latches as there was 176 days in filing the First Appeal. It was the case of the Assessee that the Assessee could not file the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on time

Asian Resources Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3), Income Tax Officer

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

ITA 2525/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalasian Resources Limited Vs Income Tax Officer M-116A, Iind Floor, Ward 3(3) Connaught Place, New Delhi Room No. 392, Central Pan: Aahca0844Q Revenue Building, I. P. Estate, New Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Mukesh Mittal, Ca Revenue By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025 Order

condone the delay of 474 days in filing the present Appeal. 3 Asian Resources Ltd. Vs. ITO 6. The grievance of the Assessee that, first appeal filed by the Assessee has been dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) without condoning the delay of 42 days, which is erroneous and deserves ... Assessee to file application for condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A) for condoning delay of 42 days in filing the First Appeal and if such application is filed by the Assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the same liberally and decide the appeal on merits

Imran Majeed, Srinagar vs. ITO, Ward 1, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal for the Asstt

ITA 586/ASR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. &
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250

first appellate authority but could not offer any reason as to why the documentary evidences uploaded in the appeal portal in course of first appeal proceedings, has not been given any cognizance before dismissing the appeal. 32. We are of the opinion that in this case the interest of justice

Imran Majeed, Srinagar vs. ITO Ward 1, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal for the Asstt

ITA 585/ASR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. &
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250

first appellate authority but could not offer any reason as to why the documentary evidences uploaded in the appeal portal in course of first appeal proceedings, has not been given any cognizance before dismissing the appeal. 32. We are of the opinion that in this case the interest of justice

Santosh Singh Hukam Singh Karnawat, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(8), Surat

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

ITA 655/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

administrative expenses which were not open to full verification, and accordingly he made adhoc disallowance @ of 20%, aggregating to Rs.9,83,145/-. In the first appeal, it appears that all these disallowances were not pressed before the Ld. CIT(A) by the assessee. The AO after invoking the provisions

Shree Khedut Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandli Ltd., Bardoli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bardoli

ITA 738/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

differential cane price paid over and above the FRP, treating such excess payment as distribution of profit and not allowable as expenditure. Upon first appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance on the ground of non-compliance and failure to substantiate the claim with requisite documentary evidence. The assessee, thereafter

Maroli Vibhag Khand Udyog Sahakari Mandali Ltd, Na vs. Arivs.ACIT, Navsari Circle, Navsari

In the result, the four Revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 17/SRT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan

Section 143(3)

differential cane price paid over and above the FRP, treating such excess payment as distribution of profit and not allowable as expenditure. Upon first appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance on the ground of non-compliance and failure to substantiate the claim with requisite documentary evidence. The assessee, thereafter

ACIT, Na vs. Ari Circle, Navsarivs.M/S. Maroli Vibhag Khand Udyog Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Navsari

ITA 225/SRT/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

differential cane price paid over and above the FRP, treating such excess payment as distribution of profit and not allowable as expenditure. Upon first appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance on the ground of non-compliance and failure to substantiate the claim with requisite documentary evidence. The assessee, thereafter