← 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

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

ITA 224/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

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

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

ITA 222/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

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

Sahakari Khand Uduog Mandal Ltd., Na vs. Arivs.DCIT, Navsari Circle, Navsari

ITA 213/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

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

Sahadari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd., Na vs. Arivs.ACIT, Navsari Circle, Navsari

ITA 212/SRT/2020[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

Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd., Gandevi vs. ACIT, Navsari Circle, Navsari

ITA 211/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

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

Madhya Pradesh Police Housing Corporation Limited, Bhopal vs. DCIT-2(1), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 109/IND/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 154

Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.11.2025 od’1/O RDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 08.11.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated ... condone delay and decide this appeal on merit. 4. On merit, the Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has decided first-appeal ex-parte qua assessee for the reason that the assessee did not make any submission before him despite opportunities given. He further submitted that

Manish Kantilal Haria, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer International Tax Ward 2 (2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6278/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 250

wholly relying upon my C.A.'s work, advices and attendance. 4. My C.A. sadly expired at relatively younger age before notices for hearing for first appeal before CIT (A) were received. In view of this, hearing notices received for appeal filed for A.Y. 2016-17 remained unattended and ex-party

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Ludhiana vs. Shree Balaji Processors, Ludhiana

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 797/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 797/Chandi/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ito Ward 1(3) Shree Balaji Processors बनाम/ Ludhiana – 141001 Tajpur Road, Opp. Central Jail Vs. Ludhiana - 141010 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Actfs-8428-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) - Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 18-10-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 23-12-2018 Rejecting Books Of The Assessee & Assessing Business Profit Of Rs.12.81 Crores. The Ld. Cit(A) Reversed The Action Of Ld. Ao Against Which The Revenue Is In Further Appeal Before Us With Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 1. That The Cit(A), Ludhiana Has Erred In Law, In Deleting Addition Of Rs.12,01,85,191/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Rejecting The Books Of Accounts U/S 145(3) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

books u/s 145(3) and applied net profit rate of 8% on gross receipts and ultimately assessed business income of Rs.12.81 Crores. 3. During first appeal, the assessee assailed rejection of books of accounts and estimation of business income. The Ld. CIT(A), after due consideration of assessee’s submissions

The Mayani Urban Co Op Bank Ltd, Satara vs. DCIT, Circle Satara

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

ITA 1930/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1930/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Mayani Urban Co-Op. Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Satara. Bank Ltd., Tal: Khatav Dist.: Satara, Mayani, A/P Mayani- 415102. Pan : Aaaat7489H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Harish Bist (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.07.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming Penalty U/S 270A(9) Of Rs.151140/- Without Appreciating The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Penalty U/S 270A Is Not Justified At 200%.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Harish Bist (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(9)

section (9) of section 270A of the Act was imposed for Rs.1,51,140/- for under reporting in consequence of misreporting. In first appeal, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC found that the appeal was furnished with the delay of 1184 days and according to Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC the delay cannot

Sourabh Sharma, Indore vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi, Delhi

The appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 342/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 253

Sourabh Sharma ITA No.342/Ind/2025 - A.Y. 2016-17 2.4 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 on the grounds

Rajesh Kumar Saxena, Pachore Rajgarh vs. ITO Rajgarh, Rajgarj Mp

Appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical

ITA 327/IND/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 133Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253

impugned assessment order” that the same is dated 28.03.2016. 2.10 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 ... UNDAKHEDI - ACCOUNT NO. 53042403893” 3.3. The Ld. AR submitted that after the initial round of hearing before the “impugned order” was passed the first appeal was migrated to the NFAC and an ex-parte order came to be issued by the Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted by him that

Late Shri Ramanand Taparia Th/Lh Chandadevi Taparia, Indore vs. National Faceless Assessment Centreq, Delhi

ITA 262/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

exigible to tax which is described in details as aforesaid. 2.14 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

Late Shri Ramanand Taparia Th/Lh Chanda Devi Taparia, Indore vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

ITA 261/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

exigible to tax which is described in details as aforesaid. 2.14 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

Jayshree Chandrasingh Kabali, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 27 (1), Mumbai

In the result, both the stay petitions of the assessee are dismissed and both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7226/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram K., Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271ASection 69

crores, treating it as unexplained investment u/s. 69. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAC were initiated on completion of the said reassessment. 3.2. Assessee filed her first appeal against the reassessment order passed u/s. 147 read with section 144 dated 23.09.2021 on 16.11.2022. Though there was a delay of 388 days ... filing this first appeal, assessee in Form 35, mentioned ‘no delay’ for the same. 3.3. Ld. CIT(A) noted in paragraph 4 that the said first appeal was filed with a delay of 54 days. He also took note of the fact of ‘no delay’ mentioned by the assessee

Jayshree Chandrasingh Kabali, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 27 (1), Mumbai

In the result, both the stay petitions of the assessee are dismissed and both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7225/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram K., Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271ASection 69

crores, treating it as unexplained investment u/s. 69. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAC were initiated on completion of the said reassessment. 3.2. Assessee filed her first appeal against the reassessment order passed u/s. 147 read with section 144 dated 23.09.2021 on 16.11.2022. Though there was a delay of 388 days ... filing this first appeal, assessee in Form 35, mentioned ‘no delay’ for the same. 3.3. Ld. CIT(A) noted in paragraph 4 that the said first appeal was filed with a delay of 54 days. He also took note of the fact of ‘no delay’ mentioned by the assessee

Rajesh Velji Rathod, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed in the said terms

ITA 4620/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Rajesh Velji Rathod, Ito Ward – 3(2), Datta Plus Computer, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Mahavir Shopping Centre, Vs. Murbad Road, Kalyan Kalyan (West) Maharashtra – 421 301 Maharashtra -421 301 Pan: Adkpr2430A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Ajay R Singh, Ld. A.R Revenue By : Shri Nakul Agrawal, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.06.2025, 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. 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Relevant For Adjudication Of The Instant Appeal Are That In The Instant Case, One Land/Property Was Sold Jointly By Various Sellers Including Assessee Herein Vide Sale Deed Dated 26.04.2010 On A Total Consideration Of Rs.2,19,00,000/- In Favour Of M/S. Priyanka Home Realties Pvt. Ltd., Whereas Market Value Of The Property Was Rs.2,79,68,500/- As Per Stamp Duty Valuation Authority. Though The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income, However, According To The Assessing Officer (Ao) Did Not Disclose This Transaction In The Itr & Therefore The Ao Asked The Assessee To Explain “As To Why The Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) From Sale Of Land Has Not Been Offered To Tax”.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R Singh, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nakul Agrawal, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 54F

income of the Assessee. 4. The Assessee, being aggrieved with the said determination of LTCG by AO, challenged the same by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order affirmed the decision of the AO and also rejected the contention of the Assessee “that the AO failed

Valaka Engineering Private Limited, West Bengal vs. ACIT, Circle – 20, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed in the above terms

ITA 3932/DEL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalasstt. Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Yash Mehta, CA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Para 6.4, which is reproduced as under: “6.3 It is clear that appellant-company has got sufficient opportunities during assessment, penalty and first appeal stage, however, the appellant has not able to furnish any explanation for nature and source of credits of sum amounting to Rs. 5,69,700/- credited

Kailash Chandra Patidar, Shajapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Shajapur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 216/IND/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Nov 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 246ASection 249(3)Section 250Section 253

Page 3 of 13 Kailash Chandra Patidar ITA No.196 & 216/Ind/2025 2.7 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 ... proceeding before CIT(A) against assessment order and penalty order for resolving his grievances. The Ld. AR then brought to our notice that the first appeal u/s 246A was filed for CIT(A) on 24.04.2022 against the “impugned assessment order”. It was submitted that the assessee throughout has remained active

Kailash Chandra Patidar, Shajapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Shajapur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 196/IND/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Nov 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 246ASection 249(3)Section 250Section 253

Page 3 of 13 Kailash Chandra Patidar ITA No.196 & 216/Ind/2025 2.7 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 ... proceeding before CIT(A) against assessment order and penalty order for resolving his grievances. The Ld. AR then brought to our notice that the first appeal u/s 246A was filed for CIT(A) on 24.04.2022 against the “impugned assessment order”. It was submitted that the assessee throughout has remained active

Harmony Foundation, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem Ward 1(3), Mumbai

ITA 5725/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Ld. Sr
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5725/M/2025 Assessment