“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

Chander Sekhar Pahariya, Bhander vs. Assessing Officer, Gwalior

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 207/AGR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Agra14 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

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

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69Section 69A

assessee owned the said joint saving bank A/c No. 1955300262 during the assessment proceedings, but retracted from owning the said A/c only during the first appeallate proceedings. Ld. DR supported the impugned order. 9. First, we proceed to examine as to whether learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming addition

Simrah Builders, Aligarh vs. DCIT4(1)(1) Aligarh, Aligarh

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed in the above terms

ITA 151/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 151ASection 250Section 251Section 68

assessee has submitted that though, all the four additions made by the Assessing Officer have been deleted by the learned CIT(Appeals) in the first appeal, however, he has enhanced a sum of Rs.54,50,000/- without affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Prayed to allow

Yasir Bilal Khan Prop. Ms Khan Impex Fruit Mandi, Parimpora Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle Jammu, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 332/ASR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: None

Section 131Section 144Section 250(6)Section 69

Rs.15 lakhs being the addition on account of unexplained investment in purchase of land u/s 69 of the Act). 10. The matter caried in first appeal has been dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) by observing as follows: “I have carefully considered the facts of the case, submissions ... Returns which are in agreement with the VAT Audit Report and as per the submissions of the ld. AR (filed in course of first appeal), the said turnover disclosed in the revised return 7 I.T.A. No. 332/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 supported by VAT Audit under

Jwala Mahila Samiti, 121 Ab Scheme No 54, Vijay Nagar Indore vs. CIT Exemption, Bhopal

ITA 578/IND/2025[NIL]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Nov 2025

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

Section 253Section 80G(5)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Swapnil Prabhakar Naik, Khandola Marcela vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) Panaji, Panaji

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 121/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Mr Vinesh Pikale [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(1)Section 5ASection 68

parties. 5. At the outset we note that, against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, the appellant filed first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appellant raised three grounds on merits ITAT-Panaji Page 5 of 10 Swapnil Prabhakar Naik ... impugned order (placed on pg 5 & 6) we note that, the Ld. CIT(A) came to dismiss both the issues and respective grounds of first appeal on the sole premise that in the impugned proceedings the appellant assessee failed to furnish requisite documentary evidences in support of claim to prove

Samandeep Kaur, Irs, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Trimurti Homes Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1035/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1034/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1035/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit-Central Circle-1 M/S Trimurti Homes Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Ludhiana – 141001 Hb-1199, Phase-1, Urban Estate Vs. Dugri, Ludhiana-141002 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadct-6759-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. Co. No. 29/Chandi/2025 [In Ita No. 1034/Chandi/2024] (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 4. Co. No. 30/Chandi/2025 [In Ita No. 1035/Chandi/2024] (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Trimurti Homes Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Hb-1199, Phase-1, Urban Estate Ludhiana-141001 Vs. Dugri, Ludhiana-141002 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadct-6759-P (Cross-Objector) (Respondent) : Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual) Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar (Ca) A/W Shri Aditya Kumar (Ca) & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal (Ca) - Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar (CA) a/w Shri Aditya KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

relief of 10% from computed values and made similar addition in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed both the assessments in first appeal. Appellate Proceedings 3.1 The assessee assailed the jurisdiction of Ld. AO on legal grounds as well as on merits. It was, inter-alia, contended

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Trimurti Homes Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1034/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar (CA) a/w Shri Aditya KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

Sampatrao Rajaram Mane, Sangola vs. ITO Ward 2, Pandharpur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1735/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1735 & 1734/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sampatrao Rajaram Mane, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Achakdani, Ward-2, Pandharpur Achakdani Sangole, Solapur – 413306 Maharashtra Pan : Anupm5837C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

ld.CIT(A). 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 issue has been raised for the first time before this Tribunal which though

Sampatrao Rajaram Mane, Sangola vs. ITO Ward 2, Pandharpur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1734/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Sahyadri Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd., Vashi, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Vashi

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

ITA 5679/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Sahyadri Sahakari Income Tax Officer, Patpedhi Ltd., Ward No.28(3)(1), Bldg No.D-1/0-6, Sector 1, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Tower No.06, Vashi, Vashi Railway Station Bldg., Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Vashi, Pan: Aadas1023P Navi Mumbai – 400703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Sushant Alme, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Sunil Mathews, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.07.2025, 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. 2019-20. 2. Considering The Peculiar Fact That The Ld. Commissioner Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine For Want Of Limitation, The Application For Adjournment Filed By The Assessee, Stands Rejected.

For Appellant: Shri Sushant Alme, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Mathews, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 80P

case and substantial justice, equity and fairplay and for the balance of convenience, is inclined to condone the delay occurred in filing of first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, subject to deposit of Rs. 22,000/- to be deposited in the Revenue Department under “other heads” within 30 days

Kripa Shanker, Patna vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Patna

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

ITA 117/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 54

that the claim of the Learned CIT(A) that the appellant has not made any compliance to the hearing notices throughout the course of first appeal proceedings is completely false and erroneous. 3. For that the appellant submitted a ground-wise written submission along with supporting documents in response

Sonu Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle, 1, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 509/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

trading addition and Rs.6,80,800/- as unexplained cash deposit treating it as deemed income u/s 69A of the Act. However, in first appeal, the Id. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee confirming the action of the AO as no controverting material was supplied by the assessee

Sonu Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle, 1, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 508/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

trading addition and Rs.6,80,800/- as unexplained cash deposit treating it as deemed income u/s 69A of the Act. However, in first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee confirming the action of the AO as no controverting material was supplied by the assessee

Sonu Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle, 1, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 507/JPR/2025[A.Y. 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

Sonu Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle, 1, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 506/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

Sonu Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle, 1, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 505/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

Creative Realmart Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 457/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Filing Of Appeal In Form-35 & Appellant Has Not Done Any Non-Compliance As Per Section 249(4)(B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Kedawat, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT (DR)

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)

hands of the assessee u/s 68 as Cash Credits in the total income declared by the assessee in return of income. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing that the assessee has not filed return of income

Bala Devi, Jaipur Rural vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 1306/JPR/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.1306/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2013-14 Smt. Bala Devi Dhani :Kankaraiwali, Saravatpura Gram: Amer, Via: Kalwad, Tehsil: Amer Jaipur 303 706 (Raj) Vs. बनाम The ITO Ward 7(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: CPCPD 3195 L अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Shyam Sunder Jangid, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे/Revenue by: Mrs. Harshi

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Sunder Jangid, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Harshita Choudhary, Addl.CIT (DR)

Section 148

discussion, the total income of the assessee is computed at 14,45,240/-.‘’ 8 SMT. BALA DEVI VS ITO, WARD 7(4), JAIPUR In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee as the assessee did not submit any commentary/ reply on Remand Report submitted

Abhay Chordia, Jaipur vs. The ACIT, Jaipur

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1121/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, Ld. CIT a

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

under Section 68and also invoking the provisions of Section 115BBE. 2. Against the order passed by ld. AO, assessee preferred first appeal. Vide order under section 250 dated 29/07/2025, Ld. CIT (A), Jaipur –5 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Jaipur 1/10987/2019-20, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Against the order ... amount of Rs. 4,35,91,454 to the total income of the assesse. 3. CIT (Appeals), Jaipur - 5 3.1. The appellant assessee filed first appeal against the above mentioned additions of Rs. 4,35,91,454/-. 3.2. Before the CIT (Appeals), elaborated submissions were made by the assesse which

Harjinder Singh, Patiala, Punjab vs. ITO Ward, Sunam, Punjab

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 510/CHANDI/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 282Section 69A

through e-mail which he was incapable of accessing. The ninety-seven- day delay is modest. In circumstances where both the assessment and the first appeal have culminated ex parte and where a live controversy persists about proper service of statutory notices, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented