← 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

Income Tax Officer, Ward -5, Panchkula, Aayakar Bhawan, Sector- vs. Navdesh Infratech, Panchkula

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 124/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.124/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ito M/S Navdesh Infratech बनाम/ Ward-5 Scf No. 11, New Grain Market Vs. Panchkula Sector-20, Haryana-134117 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaofn-9989-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Dhruv Goel (Ca) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 22-12-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 19-04-2021. The Sole Issue That Fall For Our Consideration Is Twin Additions As Made By Ld. Ao U/S 69A For Rs.970.13 Lacs & Rs.501.08 Lacs Respectively. The Ground Raised By The Revenue Read As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 144Section 69A

effective representation. Accordingly, Ld. AO made twin additions of Rs.970.13 Lacs & Rs.501.08 Lacs u/s 69A which represent unsecured loans and partners’ fund respectively. During first appeal, the assessee preferred additional evidences u/r 46A which were subjected to remand proceedings. The Ld. AO furnished remand report on 06-11-2023 which

Mr.Mohamed Meera Wahitha, Sivagangai vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Karaikudi

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

ITA 1955/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1955/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mohamed Meera Wahitha, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 13-3/12-H, Bungalow Oorani Street, Income Tax, Puduvayal, Karaikudi Taluk, Circle 1, Sivagangai 630 108. Karaikudi. [Pan:Aajpw6483G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M.K. Rangasamy, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 10 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Rangasamy, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 133ASection 44ASection 69Section 69A

discussion, whatsoever was made with regard to the authenticity of audit report. Further, we find the e-proceeding response acknowledgement dated 10.03.2021 before first appeal proceedings placed at page 70 of the paper book, wherein, it clearly shows that the assessee filed reply letter, cash book folio, Bank of Baroda