“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

Nadia Primary Teachers Training Institute, Krishnanagar vs. I.T.O., Ward - 41(1), Nadia

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1670/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: FixedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 250Section 40

notices issued from his office (as mentioned in para 11.1, at page 15 of the impugned order). In light of such non attendance the first appeal has been dismissed largely on account of non-persuasion. 1.3 Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal with the following grounds

Span Creators, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, Thane

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 911/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Tarang Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

assessment by making an addition of Rs.1 Crore in Assessment Year 2015-16 and Rs.2 lakh in Assessment Year 2016-17, u/s.68. In the first appeal, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions so made by ld. Assessing Officer. 4. Before us, at the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee asserted

Span Creators, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, Thane

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 910/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Tarang Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Swikrutee Finance Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 610/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit-Cc-7(3) Swikrutee Finance Private Room No. 655, Floor 6Th, Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Office No. Ii 289 Emca Vs. Mumbai- 400020 House, S B S Road, Mumbai 400001 Pan: Aaocs2723H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Shri Anand Mundra Revenue By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing : 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 24.06.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/ Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) (In Short ‘Ld. Commissioner’) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Is Registered As Non-Banking Financial Company (Nbfc) With Reserve Bank Of India & Engaged In The Financial Requirement Of Emerging Small & Medium Enterprises (Sme) Segment, Including Rendering An Advisory Services Relating To Financial Aspect.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr.A.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

same in the income of the assessee taxable u/s 115JB of the Act. 7. The assessee being aggrieved challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the ld. Commissioner, on legal grounds as well as merit. 8. We observe from the impugned order that Ld. Commissioner considered the legal

Standard Chartered (India) Modeling and Analytics Centre Private Limited, East and West Wing vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 1(3)(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai

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

ITA 5526/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Hon’Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Gaddi, C.A. (virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. D/R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

delay caused in filing the appeal before the ld. First Appellate Authority. The ld. AR further contended that the delay in filing the first appeal was bona fide and not just wanton and the ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the reasons specified by the assessee ... hand, vehemently opposed for extending the assessee one more opportunity, for the reason that the assesse has not substantiated the delay in filing the first appeal with ‘sufficient cause’. The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). 8. Upon perusal of the rival contentions

Standard Chartered (India) Modeling and Analytics Centre Private Limited, Bangalore Karnataka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Cirrcle 1(3)1, Mumbai

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

ITA 5525/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Hon’Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Gaddi, C.A. (virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. D/R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

Dindoshi Onkar Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5175/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh AthavleFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

advise belateledly that since rectification order has not been passed then appeal should have been filed. Accordingly we condone the delay in filing of first appeal. 3. On merits, after hearing both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order and the material placed on record we find that

Poonam Singh, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-Appeals, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5156/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Varun Sharma, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nakul Agrawal, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 144Section 250Section 50C

made u/s 50C of the Act, vide assessment order dated 15.12.2018 u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, by the Assessing Officer, by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however despite of affording various opportunities as mentioned by ld. Commissioner in para No. 3 of the impugned order

Maina Devi Patni, Jaipur vs. Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee, is allowed on the aforesaid terms

ITA 4942/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrymaina Devi Patni, Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Mumbai. 6/127, Malviya Nagar, Vs. Jaipur-302017 Pan: Axbpp 3832 B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Chand, Ld. AR (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Adesh Rai, Ld. Sr.D.R (Virtual)

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

Assessee in her bank account, made the addition of Rs. 11.00 Lac u/sec. 69A of the Act. 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, and mainly submitted that Assessee’s source of income was from family pension and interest from bank. Even otherwise, the income

Vaishali Umesh Naik, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal, is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3740/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17 Vaishali Umesh Naik Income-Tax Officer, 1052, Diwale Koliwada, Nr Ward 28(3)(1), Mumbai Darga Post, Kokan Bhavan, Vs. Income-Tax Office, Vashi Sector 14, Railway Station Building, Navi Mumbai- 400614 Navi Mumbai- 400703 Pan: Aeapn4619L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Paras Savla Revenue By : Shri Nakul Agrawal, Ld. Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.03.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/ Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Cit(A)) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. In The Instant Case, Agreement For Sale Of Property Under Consideration I.E. Flat No. 302, 3Rd Floor, Meridian Meadows, Navi Mumbai, Which Was Purchased On Total Consideration Of Rs. 85,00,000/- Showing Joint Ownership Of The Assessee & Her Husband, Was Registered With The Registration Authority On Dated 29.10.2015. The Assessing Officer (Ao) By Noticing The Facts & Examining The Bank Statement Of Assessee’S Husband Mr. Umesh

For Appellant: Shri Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Shri Nakul Agrawal, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 148Section 250Section 69

consequently added to the income of the assessee. 3. The assessee though challenged the said addition by filing the first appeal before the ld. Commissioner, however, it appears from the impugned order that the assessee failed to explain the source of payment of balance amount

DCIT Circle 3 3 1, Mumbai vs. Xoriant Solutions Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 3676/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj R. Toprani and Ms. Krupa Shah, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)

lnfochips Pvt. Ltd. 75.58% 13 Dun & Bradstreet Technologies & Data Services Pvt. 84.80% Ltd. Count 13 35th 24.12% Median 25.62% 65th 28.20% 3.4. In the first appeal, assessee contented on the rejection of CPM by the ld. TPO and substitution of TNMM as the MAM which is against the principle

DCIT Circle 3 3 1, Mumbai vs. Xoriant Solutions Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 3673/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj R. Toprani and Ms. Krupa Shah, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)

Shashwat Foundation Trust, Mumbai vs. I.T.O Exem Ward 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3553/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21 Shashwat Foundation Trust I.T.O. Exemption 253/C, Kelichi Chawl, Ward 2(3), Mumbai G. K. Marg, Lower Parel, Vs. Mumbai – 400013. (Pan: Aalts8825J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Shyamsunder Agrawal, Ca Revenue : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074468829(1), Dated 13.03.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru, U/S. 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 31.08.2023 For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: Ground No. 1 In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned C.I.T. (Appeal) Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal & Not Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeal Without Appreciating The Fact That: The Appellant Is A Charitable Trust

For Appellant: Shri Shyamsunder Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, SR. DR

Section 12ASection 143Section 154Section 249(3)

Registration Number is TR/46320.” 3. In view of ground no.1 above, we perused the order of the ld. CIT(A) and noted that the first appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) was not admitted on account of delay in filing. According ... perused the material placed on record, including the orders of the authorities below. Admittedly, there is a delay of 331 days in filing the first appeal before the ld. CIT(A), for which assessee did make an application for condonation of delay explaining its case which was rejected resulting into

Ganga Estate Developers, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-3, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee for both the Assessment Years are allowed

ITA 3017/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri. Devendra Jain and Ms. Laxmi Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)

Less- Cost of sold area Rs 12,17,28,098/- Total Profit Derived Rs 6,52,72,748/- 3.4. In the first appeal, ld. CIT(A) re-worked the above profit at Rs.5,31,20,768/- for Assessment Year 2017-18 and a loss at Rs.6,08,813/- for Assessment

Ganga Estate Developers, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward-3(2), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee for both the Assessment Years are allowed

ITA 3016/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri. Devendra Jain and Ms. Laxmi Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)

M/S Gurukrupa Group Logistic Services, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 2032/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. Shivani ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Bhagirath Ramawat, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 250Section 57

income from other sources’ by being variation in respect of interest income. 5. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, fails to substantiate its claim raised against the addition made by the AO and therefore the Ld. Commissioner by considering

Creative Insolvency Resolution Professional Pvt Ltd, Meerut vs. ITO Ward-25(2), Delhi

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

ITA 2733/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2733/Del/2025 (A.Y 2016-17) M/S Creative Insolvency Resolution Vs Income Tax Officer Profession Private Limited (Formerly Ward 25(2), C. R. Tech Mech Arc Pvt. Ltd.) C/O Building, Ito, Ip Kashyap & Co. 114/214, Citi Estate, New Delhi Centre, Begum Bridge Road, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aadct85555D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. P. S. Kashyap, Ca Revenue By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal

Section 143(3)Section 194

evidence in support of source of investment and also document for purchase of the properties. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the First Appeal of the Assessee afresh by considering the documents produced if any by the Assessee. 6. In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly

Gunjan Jaiswal, Haldwani vs. ITO, Haldwani

In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 117/DDN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 271(1)(C)Section 69A

days respectively in filing the Appeals before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the first appeals of the Assessee on delay in latches, thus, sought for dismissal of the captioned Appeals. Gunjan Jaiswal Vs. ITO 5. We have heard both the parties and perused ... cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 1034 and 854 days in filing the first Appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). Furtherconsidering the fact that even the assessment order and the order of penalty have been passed ex-parte, no fruitful object

Gunjan Jaiswal, Haldwani vs. ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Haldwani

In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 116/DDN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 271(1)(C)Section 69A

Naresh Chandra Jain, Jhansi vs. Income Tax Officer, Jhansi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 402/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

144B of the Act and assessed the assessee at total income at Rs.1,25,93,930/-, vide order dated 14.03.2023. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals), who dismissed assessee’s appeal ex parte. 4. Appellant assessee has filed this appeal on the ground that