← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Manu Gupta, Dhuri

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 202/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.201/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit Shri Rohit Gupta बनाम/ Central Circle-1 C/O Gupta Textile Trading Co. Vs. Ludhiana Old Anaj Mandi, Dhuri, Punjab-148024 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acapg-4615-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.202/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit Shri Manu Gupta बनाम/ Central Circle-1 C/O Gupta Textile Trading Co. Vs. Ludhiana Old Anaj Mandi, Dhuri, Punjab-148024 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acapg-4616-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) -Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Facts In Captioned Twin Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23 Are Admittedly Identical. First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No. 201/Chandi/2025 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) -Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69B

registered value of Rs.22 Lacs and added the differential of Rs.77.27 Lacs as unexplained investment u/s 69B. 2.3 The Ld. CIT(A), considering first appeal order Appeal No.10241/2020-21/IT/CIT(A)-5/Ldh/2023-24 dated 19-07-2024 for AY 2021-22 in the case of recipient M/s HBPL, wherein similar additions were ... HBPL, Ld. AO made similar addition of alleged on-money in the case of another assessee i.e., Shri Balwinder Singh. However, considering the first appeal order in the case of HBPL, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition so made by Ld. AO. The revenue preferred further appeal against the same

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Rohit Gupta, Dhuri

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 201/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.201/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit Shri Rohit Gupta बनाम/ Central Circle-1 C/O Gupta Textile Trading Co. Vs. Ludhiana Old Anaj Mandi, Dhuri, Punjab-148024 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acapg-4615-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.202/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit Shri Manu Gupta बनाम/ Central Circle-1 C/O Gupta Textile Trading Co. Vs. Ludhiana Old Anaj Mandi, Dhuri, Punjab-148024 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acapg-4616-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) -Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Facts In Captioned Twin Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23 Are Admittedly Identical. First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No. 201/Chandi/2025 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) -Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69B

registered value of Rs.22 Lacs and added the differential of Rs.77.27 Lacs as unexplained investment u/s 69B. 2.3 The Ld. CIT(A), considering first appeal order Appeal No.10241/2020-21/IT/CIT(A)-5/Ldh/2023-24 dated 19-07-2024 for AY 2021-22 in the case of recipient M/s HBPL, wherein similar additions were ... HBPL, Ld. AO made similar addition of alleged on-money in the case of another assessee i.e., Shri Balwinder Singh. However, considering the first appeal order in the case of HBPL, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition so made by Ld. AO. The revenue preferred further appeal against the same

DCIT-CC-8(4), Mumbai vs. Savita Oil Technologies Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4292/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit-Cc-8(4), Savita Oil Technologies Limited Mumbai 66-67 Nariman Bhavan, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021, Pan: Aaacs7934A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Yogesh Thar & Shri Chaitanya Joshi, Cas Revenue : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Cit (A) 50, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1075632908(1), Dated 15.04.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Acit,Cc- 8(4), Mumbai, U/S.143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 24.08.2021 For Ay 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Was Justified In Law In Allowing Deduction Under Section 80-Ia(4) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961, Without Adjusting The Losses Incurred By The Eligible Undertaking Prior To The Initial Assessment Year, Contrary To The Provisions Of Section 80-Ia(S)? 2. Whether The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Was Correct In Law In Relying Upon Cbdt Circular No. 1/2016 & The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Madras High Court In The Case Of Vcllayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. (340 Itr 477) When There Exist Contrary Binding Judicial Precedents Mandating That Losses Of Earlier Years, Even

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar and Shri Chaitanya Joshi, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80Section 80GSection 80I

have considered the claim which was denied as according to ld. Assessing Officer, the same was not included in the revised return. In the first appeal, assessee reiterated its submission and claimed it as allowable deduction u/s.80G by placing reliance on the decision of Prithvi Brokers (supra). Further