“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

Vishal Gift Centre - LLP, Indore vs. ACIT Central Circle - 1, Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 347/IND/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54B

Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 30.10.2025 3Tg3v0 RD ER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 10.07.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated ... income of Rs. 2,11,500/- as declared by assessee in the return of income. Aggrieved by AO’s order, the assessee went in first-appeal. During first-appeal, the assessee raised various grounds including the aforesaid twin-claims as made before AO. The CIT(A) although did not allow

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

In the result, both the appeals are under consideration are allowed on the same terms noted above

ITA 5179/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dinodoshi Onkar Co- Centralised Processing Operative Housing Society Centre/Income Tax Limited Officer, Ward 41(3)(1), Building No. 17, Dindoshi Onkar Mumbai Vs. Co-Operative Housing Society Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Limited, Gen. A.K. Vaidya Marg, Kurla Complex (East), Shivdham, Malad (East), Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai- 400097 Pan: Aaaad2593A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Athavale Revenue By : Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: These Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.06.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/ Ld. Additional Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16. 2. Both The Appeals Are Having Involved Identical Facts & Issue, Therefore, For The Sake Of Brevity, The Same Were Heard Together Dindoshi Onkar Co-Operative Housing Society Limited & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order, By Taking Into Consideration The Ita No. 5179/M/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) As The Lead Case & Result Of The Same Should Be Applicable Mutatis Mutandis To Both The Appeals Under Consideration.

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh AthavaleFor Respondent: Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 143(1)Section 2(19)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowance of Rs. 1,51,466/- u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 4. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the said disallowance/addition by filing first appeal before the ld. Commissioner, vide impugned order affirmed the aforesaid addition of Rs. 1,51,466/- being disallowance qua deduction claimed by assessee

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

ITA 5178/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh AthavaleFor Respondent: Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Sr.D.R

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

disallowance of Rs.1,51,466/- u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 4. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the said disallowance/addition by filing first appeal before the Id. Commissioner, vide impugned order affirmed the aforesaid addition of Rs.1,51,466/- being disallowance qua deduction claimed by assessee

Kbj Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst Commisioner of Income Tax- 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1837/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 133(6)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

land at Rs.1,92,86,000/-, in the total income of the Assessee. 11. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said additions by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who by impugned order deleted some of the additions and affirmed the rests, therefore, both the parties have preferred their

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kbj Developers Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and

ITA 1409/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, Ld. CA

Section 133(6)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

total income of the Assessee. 11. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said additions by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who by impugned order deleted some of the additions and affirmed the rests, therefore, both the parties have preferred their respective appeals which are under consideration. 12. First

Dharam Singh, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 653/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 653/Del/2024 (A.Y 2012-13) Dharam Singh V Income Tax Officer 118, Kautilya Apartment, Sector-6, S Ward 1(2), Room No. Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, 230, Cgo Complex-1, Uttar Pradeshpan: Aidps6593H Hapurchungi, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025

Section 143(3)Section 147

Rules 1962 and if such application is filed, the Ld. CIT(A) shall decide the same in accordance with law and also disposed the First Appeal by providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. If no application along with the documents are not filed within the reasonable time ... same shall not preclude the Ld. CIT(A) from deciding the first Appeal. 6. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th October, 2025 .- (MANISH AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 30.10.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S

Ritu Singhal, Dehradun vs. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 47/DDN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 69A

station and defined it as cash from unexplained sources. The appellant time and again in her responses at the time of search, assessment proceedings, first appeal proceedings has explained that the said cash relates to the sale proceeds from her filling station and was partly kept at the filling station ... already been submitted at the time of assessment and at the time of appellate proceedings by the appellant. The Ld. CIT (Appeal), during the first appeal proceedings, has not given due consideration to the merits of facts presented by the appellant and to the cash-book submitted by the appellant

Ashish Daulatram Sariya, Ujjain vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 893/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(b)Section 271F

hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Penalty Order.” 2.6 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “Impugned Penalty Order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the Impugned Order has dismissed the 1st appeal of the assesee on the grounds & reasons

Income Tax Officer - 3(1), Bhopal, Metro Walk Building, Bitton Market vs. Shabana Sheikh, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 588/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 54ESection 69A

which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Assessment Order”. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Assessment Order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act, before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “Impugned order” has allowed, the first appeal of the assessee ... grounds & reasons stated Page 2 of 8 Shabana Sheikh A.Y. 2018-19 therein. The core grounds & reasons basis which the first appeal of the assessee was allowed are as under:- “4. Decision:- Ground No.1:- The ground of appeal has been raised against addition

Bina Kanwar, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward Tonk, Tonk

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

ITA 1243/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 115Section 147Section 234Section 69A

unexplained money and addition of Rs.17,175/- on account of interest income treating it as ‘Income from other sources’’. In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO as the MS. BINA KANWAR , JAIPUR VS ITO, WARD - TONK assessee had not submitted any credible evidences

Shobharam Tulshiram Prajapat, Jalgaon vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Jalgaon

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

ITA 2128/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawdiaFor Respondent: Shri Ajitesh Meena

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69A

partly allowed.” 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’ 4 Shobharam Tulshiram Prajapat ... 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. For the aforestated reason, I deem it fit to set-aside the impugned order to the file

Machhindra Ishwarchand Sarode, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Thirteen(Four), Pune

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

ITA 1746/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajitesh Meena

Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(x)

ld.CIT(A) 5. 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. 3 Machhindra Ishwarchand Sarode 6. For the aforestated reason, I deem it fit to set-aside the impugned order and restore the matter

Bombay Tyres, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2393/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Bombay Tyres Vs Income-Tax Officer, 23, Arenja Corner, -15(1)(1), Sector-17, Vashi, Mumbai Navi Mumbai – 400703 [Pan: Aagcb1604E] Appellant Respondent Present For: Assessee : Shri Tanzil Padvekar & Shri Gopal Sharma, Advocates Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1057354062(1), Dated 26.10.2023 Passed Against The Assessment Order By National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi U/S.144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 28.06.2019 For Ay 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Has Erred In Confirming The Order U/S. 144 R.W.S. 144A Dated 28Th June, 2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer Without Appreciating The Merits Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil Padvekar and Shri Gopal Sharma, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

into the facts and pass the necessary order in respect of ground numbers 2, 3, 4 and 6, raised by the assessee in the first appeal. According to the assessee, since the matter was remanded back to the ld. AO, he, based on professional advice from a Chartered Accountant proceeded ... business income. Accordingly, assessment was completed at total assessed income of Rs. 3,50,08,587/- u/s. 144 r.w.s.144A. 4.3. In the first appeal, assessee again brought out the fact about correct PAN belonging to the assessee and M/s. Bombay Tyres being a proprietary concern of the assessee

Lions Club Guna City Parmarthik Niyas, Guna vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Gwalior

ITA 274/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 154(1)(b)Section 250

also been rejected by CPC, Bengaluru. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(Appeals), who, dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 4. Assessee has filed this second appeal on the following grounds : “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant is a registered charitable trust

Marshal Security Services, Agra vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 131/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2016-17, wherein learned CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 2. Brief facts state that the assessee e-filed return of income on 27.09.2016, declaring total income of Rs.21,55,530/-. Return was processed

Manto Tingkhaham, Namsangmukh vs. Office of the ITO, Digboi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 161/GTY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was disposed of by order dated 21/03/2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Vide DIN & Order No :ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074803037(1).

Section 10(26)Section 250Section 69A

sort of document to prove the source of the impugned amount being deposited in the bank account from the specified geographical area. 2.2 At first appeal stage also, the assessee could not succeed on the I.T.A. No. 161/GTY/2025 Manto Tingkhaham basis of the following findings: “6.8 In regards to fulfilling

Sonali Mahendra Naik Gaunekar, Panaji vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Panaji

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 313/PAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Mr Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(1)Section 263Section 50C

parties. 7. At the outset we note that, against the order of assessment passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 263 of the Act, the appellant filed first appeal before the Ld. NFAC wherein the appellant raised as many as twelve grounds on merits and thirteenth ground in general. The twelve grounds

Asha Panagariya, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 998/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 250

income by Rs. 12,00,000/-. Hence, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for concealed the particulars of her income.’’ In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A)has passed an ex-parte order confirming the action of the AO as the assessee had not produced any submission / materials before

Ram Prasad Through His Legal Heir Pankaj Goyal, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Bhiwadi, Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 738/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: ShriS.L. Poddar, Advocate, (Thru” VC)For Respondent: Shri Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 147Section 250

additions :- c. Unexplained cash deposit in bank Rs.15,95,000/- d. Agricultural income treated as Income from other sources Rs. 6,00,000/- In first appeal, the ld CIT(A) confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs.8,53,650/- (Rs.15,95,000 minus Rs.7,41,350) with following narration

Ram Ji Lal Meena, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Holding Additional Charge of ITO, Ward 6(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 419/JPR/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 151Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

Rs.41,80,805/- as assessed by AO. This order is subject to amendment on receipt of valuation report from the Departmental Valuation Officer.’’ In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO. The Bench also noted that earlier it had ordered the AO (vide