“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

Rekha Sahu, Bhopal vs. Income Tax Officer ITO 5(3), Bhopal

ITA 53/IND/2025[2012-2013]Status: HeardITAT Indore15 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshirekha Sahu, Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 101 Roop Nagar Colony, 5(3), Vs. By Pass Bhopal Karond, Bhopal

Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 253

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 on the grounds

Shilpa Malik, Bhopal vs. Income Tax Officer 3(3), Bhopal

ITA 346/IND/2025[2012-2013]Status: HeardITAT Indore15 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 50C

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

Purshottam Rathore, Ratlam vs. ITO 1(2), Ujjain

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 260/IND/2025[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Indore15 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 13.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 15.10.2025 smez1/O RDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 28.06.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated ... assessment u/s 144 by treating the impugned deposits of Rs. 16,69,500/- as unexplained money u/s 69A. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal but could not make a representation to the hearing notices issued by CIT(A) and therefore the CIT(A) dismissed assessee’s appeal. Still

Paras Kumar Kothari, Bhopal vs. ITO- 2(3), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 856/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Indore15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 250

Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 13.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 15.10.2025 smez1/O RDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 24.03.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A) 7 CIT(A), NFAC”] which in turn arises ... aggregating to Rs. 7,00,000/- and completed assessment. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal but did not get any relief. Still aggrieved, the assessee has come before us in next appeal. 5. The assessee has raised following grounds: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances

Mohan Lal Yadav, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward -1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1223/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1223/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Mohan Lal Yadav Vs. The ITO C/o Shri R.S. Poonia, CA Ward 1(1) D-82-B, Siwad Area, Krishna Marg Jaipur Bapu Nagar, Jaipur - 302015 स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं. / PAN/GIR No.: ARMPY 7388Q अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Ms. Payal Jhorar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Ga

For Appellant: Ms. Payal Jhorar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 69A

YADAV VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR provisions of section 69A of the Act. Penalty u/s 271AAC of the Act in initiated separately.’’ In first appeal, ld.CIT(A) has also confirmed the action of the AO as the assessee had not advanced any written submission to counter the assessment order

Govindam Brj Infra Projects Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT Cir-6, Jpr, Jaipur

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1115/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Somani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 270A(1)Section 271Section 44A

books u/s 145(3) and estimating income 8% of turnover of Rs. 17,97,27,307/- after considering effect of section 115JB. 4. In first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal vide order dated 24.03.2025, mainly holding that the assessee did not file effective submissions during appellate proceedings

Govindam Brj Infra Projects Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT Cir-6, Jpr, Jaipur

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1114/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Somani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 270A(1)Section 271Section 44A

books u/s 145(3) and estimating income @ 8% of turnover of Rs. 17,97,27,307/- after considering effect of section 115JB. 4. In first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal vide order dated 24.03.2025, mainly holding that the assessee did not file effective submissions during appellate proceedings

Udita Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward, 1, Kishangarh

11. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is disposed of, for statistical purposes and the matter is restored to the files of the Assessing

ITA 1019/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

That is how, an addition of Rs. 39,64,254/- was made while disallowing the commission expenses. Matter comes up by way of First Appeal 6. When the assessment order was challenged, Learned CIT(A), NFAC found that in the assessment proceedings, the assessee had submitted only a ledger account

Vijay Manikrao Gaikwad, Pune vs. Pr. CIT Circle 7, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1234/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1233 & 1234/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Vijay Manikrao Gaikwad, Vs. Assessment Unit, Hissa No.901, Shree Balaji, Income Tax Department. Pune Solapur Road, Kadamwak Wast, Haveli, Pune- 412201. Pan : Aehpg8143F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 12.03.2025 Passed U/S 144 & 270A Of The Act By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2021-22 Respectively. 2. Since The Facts Are Identical & Both The Appeals Were Heard Together, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 142(1)Section 144

assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by determining total income at Rs.8,96,87,726/-. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee furnished first appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC provided two opportunities of hearing. On the first date of hearing the assessee sought adjournment

Vijay Manikrao Gaikwad, Pune vs. Pr. CIT Circle 7, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1233/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 142(1)Section 144

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-16(1), Mumbai vs. Viacom18 Media Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5658/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Respondent: Shri Nimesh Vora, Ld. Adv

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

Library"; and, on account of restriction of depreciation on computer accessories to 15%. 4. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said additions/disallowances by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order dated 27/08/2024, deleted the aforesaid additions/disallowances and, therefore, the Revenue being aggrieved, has preferred instant appeal ... provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 9.2 Somehow the Assessee challenged the said consequential order dated 31/03/2017 passed by the AO, by filing first appeal before the then CIT(A), before whom during the course of such appellate proceedings the valuation report was provided/submitted. 9.3 The then

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Mohd Rizwan, Delhi

ITA 3535/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Income Tax Officer, Delhi. (Appellant)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhijeet Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 80C

Relevant part of this judgement is reproduced below “In this appeal from the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in First Appeal No. 180 of 1959 on its file the principal question that arises for decision is as to the market value of the appellants' orchard acquired under

Opelina Finance and Investment Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 19(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1423/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] M/S. Opelina Finance & Vs Ito, Investment Ltd., 28, Nazafgarh Ward-19(2), Room Road, Delhi-110015. No.217, C.R.Building, Pan-Aaaco5195R New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Shri Utkarsh Kumar Gupta, Advocates Respondent By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.10.2025 Order

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

computed by the AO. Further the said disallowance was added to the book profit for the purpose of payment of MAT. 3. In first appeal, Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed such disallowance however, deleted the addition made in the book profits. Therefore, the assessee is in appeal before

Hamid Husain, Bhopal vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 115/IND/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiito-4(1), Hamid Husain, बनाम/ Bhopal 369, Kaji Camp, Vs. Gali No.3, Near Sindhi Colony, Berasia Road, Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Hamid Husain, Assessment Unit, बनाम/ 369, Kaji Camp, Income Tax Department Vs. Gali No.3, Near Sindhi Colony, Berasia Road, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270A

Date of Hearing 14.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 30.10.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 25.09.2024 passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn Page 1 of 12 Hamid Husain ITA Nos. 796/Ind/2024 ... also being initiated separately for under reporting of the income. (Addition of Rs. 9,10,39,185/-)” (ii) Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A). The assessee made detailed submission which is re-produced by CIT(A) in Para No. 4 / Pages

Income Tax Officer -4(1), Bhopal vs. Hamid Husain, Bhopal

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 796/IND/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270A

Shri Anoop Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 14.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement_ | 30.10.2025 smez1/O RDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 25.09.2024 passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn Page 1 of 12 Hamid Husain ... also being initiated separately for under reporting of the income. (Addition of Rs. 9,10,39,1857)” Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A). The assessee made detailed submission which is re-produced by CIT(A) in Para No. 4 / Pages 3 to 6 of impugned

Kamal Singh, Bharatpur vs. ITO WD 1, Bharatpur

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

ITA 1106/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

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

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

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

account is deemed as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added to the total income of the assessee.’’ In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A)has passed an ex-parte order confirming the action of the AO as the assesee had not filed

Harkaran Singh Bindra, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1 (3), Jaipur

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

ITA 1086/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

lapses on the part of the assessee where there are non-compliances in total and addition being made in line with CASS reasons." In first appeal, the Id. CIT(A)has passed an ex-parte order confirming the action of the AO as the assessee had not advanced any plausible

Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2)(3) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Nitinbhai Kanubhai Patel, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 183/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-2017 Ito, Ward-4(2)(3) Shri Nitinbhai Kanubhai Patel Ahmedabad. Vs. Room No.303, 3Rd Floor Aaykar Bhavan Vejalpur, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaspp 5802 F (Applicant) (Responent) : None Assessee By : Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.Dr. Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54BSection 54B(1)(i)

account of disallowance of deduction u/s. 54B of the IT Act was made which was also confirmed in first appeal by Ld. CIT(A) vide order no. CIT(A)-13/Intl. Taxn/Ahd/2018-19 dated 13.03.2020. However, Sh. Ashok Kanu Bhai Patel preferred appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT allowing the appeal

Ambalal Gorakh Choudhari, Prakasha vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Dhule

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

ITA 1422/PUN/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1422/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ambalal Gorakh Choudhari Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Dhule. Legal Heir Anita Ambalal Chaudhari, Mukteshwar Mandir, At Post Prakasha, Taluka Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar- 425409. Pan : Afrpc1304D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Rathi Revenue By : Shri Harshit Bari Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-2, Gurugram [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Learned Assessing Officer & The Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Making/Confirming Additions Of Rs. 1020740/- To Returned Income U/S.69A Of The Act, As Said Section Is Applicable Only When In Any Financial Year The Assessee Is Found To Be Owner Of Any Money, Bullion, Jewellery Or Any Other

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep RathiFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari

Section 148Section 69A

against the agricultural income shown by the assessee at Rs.11,98,950/-. 8 5. Aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee filed first appeal before Ld. CIT(A). After considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 31.03.2025 dismissed the appeal filed

Prince Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 35(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 561/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Prince Jain Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 302, Ward 32(2)(5), Kesar Exotica Towers Mumbai Sector, 10 Building No. 3 Vs. Khargar, Navi Mumbai – 410210 Maharashtra Pan: Ahfpj2015G (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Rutuja N. Pawar and Ms. Sneha More, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

No.9 is relevant for our adjudication which deals with dismissal of appeal by the ld. CIT(A) on account of delay in filing the first appeal without explaining the sufficient cause for the said delay. From para-5.16 of the order of ld. CIT(A), we note that the first ... amount of Rs. 2,70,972/- for amount reflected in Form 26AS. The ex parte order was passed on 28.12.2017. Assessee filed the first appeal in Form No.35, dated 16.07.2019. At Row No.14 in Form No.35, assessee submitted that there is no delay in filing the said appeal. However