“first appeal”

Shri Ghulam Nabi Dand, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Udhampur

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

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

interest of justice will be served if the matter is remanded back to the files of the Assessing Officer for afresh assessment (instead before first appeal, considering the ex-parte assessment order) and the assessee is also directed to furnish all documentary evidences along with the books of account, bank

Shri Baljinder Singh Chahal, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1), Amritsar

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 282/Asr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shri Baljinder Singh Chahal Ito S/O Shri Natha Singh Ward-4(1) / Now Ward2(1) बनाम Village Ramanchack, Po-Dhulka Amritsar (Punjab) - 143001 / Vs. Teh. Baba Bakala Amritsar (Punjab) -143111 "ायी लेखा सं./Pan. Ahlpc-4755-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri Daljit Singh Marwaha (Ca)- Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Charan Dass (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16/10/2025

assessee. However, in the computation sheet, the said figure was erroneously taken as Rs.29 Lacs. The assessee challenged both the additions in first appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) fully allowed the appeal of the assessee qua addition of Rs.29 Lacs though the discussion was made in the impugned order towards

Nardeep Singh, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Dasuya

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 637/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Nardeep Singh Ito बनाम/ 104, Vill Baghiarhi, Ward Dasuya Tehsil Dasuya, Hoshiarpur Punjab-144203 Vs. Punjab-144203 "ायी लेखा सं./Pan. Ckbps-0506-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Vijh (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Charan Dass (Addl. Cit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R

remanded the matter back to the file of Ld. AO without adjudicating vital legal issues as raised by the assessee during first appeal. 2. We find that in the assessment order, Ld. AO made addition of Rs.28.50 Lacs. The assessee did not file return of income and accordingly, the case ... vide para 6, set aside the assessment back to the file of Ld. AO in terms of Sec.251(1)(a). During first appeal, the assessee had filed detailed written submissions on 12-06-2019 and 18-05-2023 wherein the assessee raised pertinent legal ground assailing the jurisdiction

Dilip Budhadev, Indore, Madhya Pradesh vs. The ITO, Sendhwa, Madhya Pradesh

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid "impugned assessment order" prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order" has dismissed the 1st appeal of the assessee ... were placed on record of this tribunal. The Ld. AR contended that there was a delay of 19 days only in preferring the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the "impugned assessment order” is dated 29.03.2022. The requisite fee for the first appeal was paid

Income Tax Officer-2(1), Indore, Aayakar Bhawan Indore vs. Gurdeep Singh Chhabra, Indore

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Shri S.S. Sheetal & Prabhpreet Sheetal, ARs Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR 01.10.2025 16.10.2025 आदेश/ORDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 08.08.2024 passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)-NFAC, Delhi ["CIT(A)"] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 30.05.2023 passed ... Rs.5,50,000/- and determining total income of assessee at Rs.2,17,41,880/-. (iii) Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal and raised several grounds challenging the legality of re-assessment proceedings as also the merits of additions made by AO. One of the grounds raised by assessee

Shivkripa Devcons Private Limited, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer Or Other, National Faceless Assessment Centre

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the “impugned

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

aforesaid assessment order is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. 2.12 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned assessment order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on grounds/reasons stated

Shardindu Prasad Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Patna

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

delay arises in filing documents before Income Tax Authorities. 2nd reason on delay is that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) decided the first appeal on the basis of assessment order page no. 1 to 3 and page no. 10 & 11 as issued as certified copies on assessee

Bhavanaben Pravinchandrabhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(3)(6), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.71/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Bhavnaben Pravinchandrabhai Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ Patel Ward-1(3)(6), Surat, 303, Vs. 16D/183/6 Shiv Shaki Bhavan, Income Tax Office, Anavil Opp. Rupli Chinema, Ram Business Centre, Adajan, Surat- Nagar, Rander Road, Surat-395 395 007 005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bgfpp 0968 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

handled by Advocate, Shri Kishorbhai Patel of Surat, who also appeared before the AO on behalf of assessee during assessment proceedings. He also filed first appeal on behalf of the assessee before CIT(A). Assessee further stated that service of appellate order of ITA No.71/SRT/2025/ AY 12-13 Bhavanaben