← 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

Bhagawati M Jain, Dombivali vs. Ward 3(1), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2408/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Bhagawati M Jain Income Tax Officer C-22, Bhanu Chs, Ward 3(1), Bhanu Nagar, Dombivali East, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Vs. Kalyan - 421201 Kalyan-Murbad Rd, Maharashtra Kalyan-Dombivali, Maharashtra, 421301 (Pan: Aatpj1123G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Viraj Mehta, Ca Revenue : Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2026 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/250/2024-25/1073449956(1), Dated 19.02.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, U/S. 147 R.W.S.144B Of The Income- Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 26.02.2024, For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153CSection 69B

total income, on account of payment of on money in cash for the shop purchased by the assessee. 4. In the first appeal before ld. CIT(A), assessee reiterated his submissions made at the reassessment proceedings. Ld. CIT(A) categorically observed in Para 4 at page 9 of his order

Sangeeta Aggarwal, Sangeeta Aggarwal Ambala City vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2 Chandigarh, Central Circle, Chandigarh

The appeals stand allowed on merits accordingly

ITA 335/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.329/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.330/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.333/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.334/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.335/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Sangeeta Aggarwal Dcit (Central-2) बनाम/ C/O Sh. Rajiv Goel & Associates Cr Building, Sector 17 179, Bank Road Chandigarh – 160017 Vs. Ambala Cantt. (Haryana) -133001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abfpa-8835-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-03-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (CA) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 132(4)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 292C

Singla (ITA 456-458/Chd/2014) has rejected similar assumption as made by Ld. AO. The other decisions as cited by the assessee during first appeal reinforces the said proposition and reject arbitrary assumption of facts by Ld. AO. 9. Finally, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we would

Sangeeta Aggarwal, Sangeeta Aggarwal Ambala City vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2 Chandigarh, Central Circle Chandigarh

The appeals stand allowed on merits accordingly

ITA 334/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.329/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.330/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.333/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.334/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.335/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Sangeeta Aggarwal Dcit (Central-2) बनाम/ C/O Sh. Rajiv Goel & Associates Cr Building, Sector 17 179, Bank Road Chandigarh – 160017 Vs. Ambala Cantt. (Haryana) -133001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abfpa-8835-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-03-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (CA) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 132(4)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 292C

Singla (ITA 456-458/Chd/2014) has rejected similar assumption as made by Ld. AO. The other decisions as cited by the assessee during first appeal reinforces the said proposition and reject arbitrary assumption of facts by Ld. AO. 9. Finally, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we would

Sangeeta Aggarwal, Sangeeta Aggarwal Ambala City vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2 Chandigarh, DCIT Central Circle Chandigarh

The appeals stand allowed on merits accordingly

ITA 333/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.329/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.330/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.333/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.334/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.335/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Sangeeta Aggarwal Dcit (Central-2) बनाम/ C/O Sh. Rajiv Goel & Associates Cr Building, Sector 17 179, Bank Road Chandigarh – 160017 Vs. Ambala Cantt. (Haryana) -133001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abfpa-8835-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-03-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (CA) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 132(4)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 292C

Singla (ITA 456-458/Chd/2014) has rejected similar assumption as made by Ld. AO. The other decisions as cited by the assessee during first appeal reinforces the said proposition and reject arbitrary assumption of facts by Ld. AO. 9. Finally, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we would

Sangeeta Aggarwal, Ambala City vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2 Chandigarh, Central Circle, Chandigarh

The appeals stand allowed on merits accordingly

ITA 330/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.329/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.330/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.333/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.334/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.335/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Sangeeta Aggarwal Dcit (Central-2) बनाम/ C/O Sh. Rajiv Goel & Associates Cr Building, Sector 17 179, Bank Road Chandigarh – 160017 Vs. Ambala Cantt. (Haryana) -133001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abfpa-8835-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-03-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (CA) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 132(4)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 292C

Singla (ITA 456-458/Chd/2014) has rejected similar assumption as made by Ld. AO. The other decisions as cited by the assessee during first appeal reinforces the said proposition and reject arbitrary assumption of facts by Ld. AO. 9. Finally, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we would

Sangeeta Aggarwal, Ambala City vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2 Chandigarh, Central Circle Chandigarh

The appeals stand allowed on merits accordingly

ITA 329/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.329/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.330/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.333/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.334/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.335/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Sangeeta Aggarwal Dcit (Central-2) बनाम/ C/O Sh. Rajiv Goel & Associates Cr Building, Sector 17 179, Bank Road Chandigarh – 160017 Vs. Ambala Cantt. (Haryana) -133001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abfpa-8835-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-03-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (CA) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 132(4)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 292C

Singla (ITA 456-458/Chd/2014) has rejected similar assumption as made by Ld. AO. The other decisions as cited by the assessee during first appeal reinforces the said proposition and reject arbitrary assumption of facts by Ld. AO. 9. Finally, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we would

ACIT, Circle 5(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Venus Remedies Ltd., Chandigarh

The appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 742/CHANDI/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.742/Chandi/2009 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Acit Circle 5(1) M/S Venus Remedies Ltd. बनाम/ Vs. Sco 40-41, Sector 17-A Sco 39, Sector – 26 Chandigarh – 160017 Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacv-6524-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca), Sh. Jaspal Sharma (Advocate)&Ms. Shruti Khandelwal (Advocate) – By Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.03.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2006-07 Has Come Up For Hearing Before Us Pursuant To The Directions Of Hon’Ble Punjab & Haryana High Court In Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.81-2012 Dated 25-07-2024 Wherein Following Substantial Questions Of Law Were Determined: - 1. Weather On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Hon’Ble Itat Was Right In Upholding The Decision Of Ld. Cit(A) Who Directed The Ao To Reallocate The Expenses On Sales Ratio & To Reduce The Addition To Rs.142.24 Lacs As Against The Addition Of Rs.7,61,96,306/- On Account Of Unexplained Expenditure U/S 69C?

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA), Sh. Jaspal SharmaFor Respondent: Sh. Yamini (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 35(2)Section 4Section 69CSection 80I

disallowed excess expenditure as claimed by the assessee against Baddi unit u/s 69C. The excess expenditure worked out to be Rs.761.96 Lacs. 2.3 During first appeal, the assessee’s submissions were subjected to remand proceedings. The Ld. AO furnished remand report on 31-03-2009 which was confronted

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

ITA 2570/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: This Tribunal. 2. Since, The Facts Are The Identical Across All The Appeals / For All The Assessment Years, Except For The Nature Of The Additions / Disallowances Varying In Few Of The Assessment Year(S) Before This Tribunal In The Present Batch Of 6 Appeals, The Appeal Arising From The A.Y. 2012-13 Is Being Taken Up As The Lead Case With The Consent Of The Both The Ld. Ar As Well As The Departmental Representatives. 3. The Brief Fact Of The Present Case Is That The Assessee, Shri Thanushkodi Narayanan, Is The Managing Director Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt Ltd. The Assessee Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 27.09.2012 In Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.24,87,430/-. 4. A Search & Seizure Operation Was Carried Out In Terms Of Section 132 Of The Act On 04.10.2017 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee & Also In The Premises Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. In Which The Assessee Is The Managing Director. 5. Thereafter, A Notice U/S.153A Of The Act For The A.Y.2012-13 Was Issued On 25.09.2018 To The Assessee By The Assessing Officer (In Short “Ao”) & In Response To The Same, The Assessee Had Filed E-Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 17.08.2019 In Declaring Total Income Of Rs.14,53,440/-. :-3-:

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

regard to the additions / disallowances forming part of the search assessment order passed u/s.153A of the Act on merits, i.e. on merits before the first appeal, had filed submissions along with documentary evidence in support thereof in pleading for deleting the additions / disallowances on merits as well. 22. The Ld.CIT ... confirmed the addition of Rs.92,95,305/- made u/s.56(2)(viii)(c) of the Act at para 6.6.5 of the impugned order of the first appeal. 25. The assessee aggrieved with the said order of the Ld.CIT(A) had filed the present appeal before us, by raising grounds of appeal