“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

Kailash Bhil, Ajmer vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Ajmer

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

ITA 175/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234A

unexplained short term capital gain is assessed at Rs.55,71,825/- after giving benefit of cost of purchase amounting to Rs.1.50,000/-" In first appeal, the Id CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee as mentioned above. The Bench noted that the assessee was ex-parte before

Kishan Lal Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 1(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 1155/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

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

Section 69ASection 69C

also initiated for failure to furnish of return in compliance of under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Income tax Act." In first appeal, the Id. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO as the assessee had not filed the any written submission / evidence to counter

Mali Ram Yadav, Therkyo Ki Dhani vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1110/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1110/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Mali Ram Yadav Thekryo Ki Dhani, Village & Post: Jahota, Tehsil: Amer Distt: Jaipur 303 701 बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward - 7(2) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं. / PAN/GIR No.: ABJPY 6715A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assesseeby : Shri Rakesh Kumar Kabra, CA Mrs. Prachela Kabra, CA राजस्व की ओर से /

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 69

treated as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and taxed accordingly in the hands of the assessee. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO by observing as under:- ‘’In view of the above facts, circumstances, and legal precedents, the appeal

M/S Vxa Global LLP, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1027/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Ms. Paridhi Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 144BSection 250Section 37(1)

serious personal problems. In the Third week of the month of June 2025, the appellant contacted the professional enquiring about the status of first Appeal, then, got to know that first appeal was dismissed and order u/s 250 of the act was passed on 26.06.2024. 5. In these circumstances ... delay happened due to the insufficient knowledge and 4 M/S. VXA GLOBAL LLP VS ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR information with the appellant regarding first appeal being dismissed due to bad health condition 6. In these circumstances the delay of 383 days in filing the appeal to the Hon. Appellate

Vijay Singh, Salarpur vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Alwar

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

ITA 393/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CA (Thru:VC)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 234BSection 69ASection 80C

assessee as income from Interest. Thus the total additionsmade in the hands of the assessee is Rs.6,30,910/- by the AO. In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO as the assessee had not furnished any evidences to counter the order

Rama Kant Saboo, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle 7, Baba Siddhanatha Bhawan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1490/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kanodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 143Section 234Section 57

above. Tax and Interest on above assessed total income works out on computation sheet which is also the part of order.’’ In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO and thus dismissed the grounds of appeal raised before him. It is noted that

Gokuldass Srinivasan, Udumalaipettai vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Tiruppur

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

ITA 2230/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 263

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) on 20.06.2022 against the assessment order dated 31.03.2022 (supra) and while the first appeal was pending before the Ld.CIT(A), the Ld.PCIT is noted to have exercised his revisional jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act and issued show cause notice

Incometax Officer, Chennai vs. Doosan Bobcat India Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2137/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2137/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 & C.O. No. 75/Chny/2025 [In I.T.A. No. 2137/Chny/2025] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Doosan Bobcat India Pvt. Ltd., Htc Towers, 6Th Floor, No. 41, Gst Corporate Ward 2(1), Chennai. Road, Guindy Industrial Estate, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aaccd6529L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ashik Shah, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.P. Solomon, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.05.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant-Revenue Raised 6 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Allowing Assessee’S Claim Of Depreciation Under Section 2

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT

Section 2Section 32(1)(ii)

that the Assessing Officer made adjustments on account of depreciation on dealer network, vendor relationship, customer database & relationship and trained employee base and in first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the above said adjustments. Having aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Appellant-Revenue

Gokuldass Srinivasan, Udumalaipettai vs. PCIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1061/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 263

Surendra Kumar Agarwal, Mauranipur vs. National E Assessment Center, Delhi

In the result, ITA No. 80 and 255/Agr/2025 are allowed for statistical

ITA 80/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250 of the Act for the assessment year 2020-21, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 2. Since the facts and issue involved in all these appeals are almost similar, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed ... added it to the income of the assessee. 2 | P a g e ITA Nos. 80, 255 & 278/Agr/2025 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals) against the assessment order dated 21.04.2021 passed u/s. 143(3) r/w section 144B of the Act. Learned CIT(Appeals), after considering

Suleman Khan, Jhansi vs. Income Tax Officer, Jhansi

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

ITA 361/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 133(6)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 2Section 250Section 69A

before ld. CIT(Appeals), who dismissed assessee’s appeal ex parte upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay caused in filing first appeal and on merit as well. 5. Appellant assessee has filed this appeal on the ground that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erroneously upheld the said ... 144B of the Act. Such an irresponsive and reluctant conduct of the assessee is unacceptable. 8. We further note that the first appeal was filed on 18.08.2023 against the assessment order dated 30.03.2022 by a delay of about 110 days. The cause for the delay was shown

Bhagwati Infraestate Private Limited, Jhansi vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi

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

ITA 357/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 250(6)

justified in passing ex parte order without providing reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee and without considering the issue arising in first appeal on merits, contrary to the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. 5. Perused the records and heard learned representative for assessee

Dinesh Chand Kaushik, Aligarh vs. ITO, Delhi

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

ITA 339/AGR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

assessed assessee's total income at Rs.16,59,86,605/-. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Id. CIT(Appeals), who dismissed assessee's first appeal ex parte. 4. Appellant assessee has filed this appeal on the ground that Id. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the additions made ... notices dated 14.11.2024, 20.12.2024, 22.01.2025 and 28.03.2025 to assessee, who remained irresponsive. Learned CIT(Appeals), thus passed ex parte impugned order, dismissing assessee's first appeal. Perusal of assessment order also shows that due to irresponsive conduct of the assessee, learned Assessing Officer was compelled to pass best judgment assessment

Surendra Kumar Rai, Jhansi vs. DCIT 1(1) Gwalior, Gwalior

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

ITA 312/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

total income at Rs.1,49,92,450/-, vide assessment order dated 24.12.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals), who dismissed assessee’s appeal ex parte. 4. Assessee has filed this second appeal on the ground that the ex parte

Income Tax Officer, Agra vs. Rameshwar Singh, Agra

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 286/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69ASection 69C

best judgment assessment u/s. 144 of the Act and assessed total income of assessee at Rs.1,19,01,460/-. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before learned CIT(Appeals). Learned CIT(Appeals), after considering appellant’s submissions, found that the appellant was a milk distributor, doing his business

Surendra Kumar Agarwal, Jhansi vs. Assessment Unit, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No. 80 and 255/Agr/2025 are allowed for statistical

ITA 278/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

Surendra Kumar Agarwal, Mauranipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jhansi

In the result, ITA No. 80 and 255/Agr/2025 are allowed for statistical

ITA 255/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

Aapna Marble, G T Road Bhucho Kalan vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle II Bathinda

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 639/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, C.A

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250

building construction and an addition of Rs.5.79 lakhs for disclosing low GP / NP rate from regular business activity ). 10. The matter carried in first appeal has been dismissed by the Ld. CIT ( A ) without much discussion on the various issues raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal

Katrathal Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Limited, Katrathal vs. ITO Ward 1 Sikar, Sikar

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1001/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 151Section 234ASection 250

held in the SCN and completed the assessment at Rs.2,47,549/- by disallowing the deduction claimed of Rs.2,47,549/- u/s 80P. In first appeal we have filed the detailed WS and Paper book as well as legal position. However the Id. AO did not consider the same

Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd Vikramjot Basti, Vikramjot vs. Inocme Tax Officer Basti -New, Income Tax Office Basti

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 486/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sahkari Ganna Vikas V. The Income Tax Officer Samiti Ltd. Basti Vikramjot, Basti (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aabas4611B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.12.2024, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Bengaluru For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Co- Operative Society Registered Under The Co-Operative Societies Act, 1912. The Main Activity Of The Assessee Was Marketing Of Sugar Cane Grown By The Cane Growers, Who Were Members Of The Assessee-Society. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 21.03.2018, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,73,170/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee-Society Had Received Commission From Sugar Mills On Supply Of Sugar Cane Of Rs.70,16,032/-, Which Was Claimed As Exempt In Terms Of Section 80P(2)(A)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Bengaluru, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. That the ADDL/JCIT(A)-3 Bengaluru has committed manifest error of law by rejecting the first appeal of the appellant without appreciating facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant. 2. That the appeal filed by the assessee against