“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

Sadhana Annasaheb Sonwane, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1636/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year:2013-14 Sadhana Annasabeh Sonwane Vs Ito Ward 29(3)(2), Mumbai 502/B, Sai Regency, Bhoir Nagar, Vashi Railway Station, Vidyalaya Marg, Mulund (E), 3X7X+Gqp, 3Rd & 4Th Floor, Mumbai 400081 6Th Tower, Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400703 (Pan: Aqsps7089R) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Sanjeev Brahme, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 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/Nfca/S/250/2024-25/1072025693(1), Dated 09.01.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ito-W-29(3)(2) U/S.143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 29.03.2016 For Ay 2013-14. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “(I) The Cit(A) Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Has Erred In Confirming The Order Of Assessing Officer. (Ii) The Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Has Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Assessing Officer, Thereby Confirming The Denial Of The Benefit Under Section 54F.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Brahme, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 54F(1)

section 54F(1). Accordingly, claim of deduction u/s. 54F is not available and he hence made the addition by disallowing the same. In first appeal, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the said disallowance. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 Sadhana Annasabeh Sonwane AY 2013-14 4. Before

Subha Hariharan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 35(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1154/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Subha Hariharan Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 4 B 503/504, Ward 35(3)(4), Dosti Elite Tower -B Mumbai Vs. Next To Sion Telephone Exchange Sion (W), Mumbai – 400022 (Pan: Acmph5705R) (Assessee) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Mr. Ruturaj Gurjar, Advocate Revenue : Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. Dr (Virtually Appeared) Date Of Hearing : 30.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1071531320(1), Dated 24.12.2024 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income-Tax Officer, Ward – 35(3)(4), Mumbai, U/S. 144 R.W.S.147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 27.12.2018 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 24/12/2024 Without Giving Reasonable Opportunity To The Petitioner To Represent Its Case.

For Appellant: Mr. Ruturaj Gurjar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

grounds taken in this appeal.. 3. All the ground nos. 1 to 3 are in respect of dismissal of the first appeal ignoring the submissions made by the assessee for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and not giving reasonable opportunity to present ... case. 4. From the perusal of the order of ld. CIT(A), we note from para 2.3 that the delay in filing the first appeal was not condoned and the appeal was thus dismissed without dealing with the merits of the case. 5. Assessee had furnished grounds for condonation

ACIT (Cir.) - 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bhandar Power Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1908/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Bhandar Power Ltd. Income Tax, 14Th Floor, Essar House, Circle 6(1)(2), 11, K. K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai - 400034 (Pan: Aaacb6693B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta, Fca & Shri Tarang Mehta, Advocate Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Delhi, Vide Order Dated 25.01.2018 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ito 6(1)(4), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 20.12.2016, For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Deleting The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Income Tax Act Of Rs. 203,13,43,740/-Without Considering The Fact That The Provisions Of Section 801A(10) Is Clearly Attracted In This Case Hence The Assessee Is Not Eligible For Claiming Deduction U/S 801A Of The Income Tax Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, FCA and Shri Tarang Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 801ASection 801A(10)Section 80I

Therefore, the deduction is to be restricted to profits emanating from actual generation and supply of power to the customer companies. 6. In the first appeal, assessee submitted that the issue raised by the ld. Assessing Officer is squarely covered by the decision of Coordinate Bench in assessee

Alankit Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2), Delhi

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

ITA 3207/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

were carried out the CPC-Bangluru and intimation was issued enhancing the assessed income in the captioned assessment years. The CIT(A) in the first appeal has sustained the adjustments towards belated deposits of employees’ contribution to PF/ESIC in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme

Sandeep Kumar Mundra, Burhanpur vs. ITO, Burhanpur

In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 314/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisandeep Kumar Mundra, Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ S.K. Enterprises, Burhanpur Vs. Kalabagh Emagrid, Burhanpur (Pan:Abtpm8551C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Manoj Phadnis, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 68

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

Sarika Bhandari, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ratlam

ITA 303/IND/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

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

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 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

Globus Housing, Bhopal vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the “impugned

ITA 872/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 68

aforesaid assessment order is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. 2.13 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

Pramila Agarwal, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2(5), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 531/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

without affording adequate opportunity of being heard. At this juncture, kind attention of your honours is invited to the fact that ld.CIT(A) completed first appeal proceedings without affording adequate opportunity of being heard. It is submitted that in all 4 notices were issued during appellate proceedings, dated

Haryana Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Panchkula vs. DCIT, Exemption, Chandigarh

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 337/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 237/Chd/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Haryana Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Bays No. 29- 30, Sector 4, Panchkula, Haryana The Dcit, बनाम Circle 2, Vs. Exemption, Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaath6995H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.337 To 339/Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Haryana Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Bays No. 29- 30, Sector 4, Panchkula, Haryana The Dcit बनाम Exemption, Vs. Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaath6995H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 63/Chd/2021 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Haryana Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Bays No. 29-30, Sector 4, Panchkula, Haryana The Dcit बनाम Exemptions, Vs. Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaath6995H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate, Sh. Ashok Goyal, Ca & Sh. Sifatfreet Singh, Ca राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Manav Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 10.12.2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: The Captioned Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals) For Different Assessment Years, As Per The Details Given Below: S.No.

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 263

under section 143(3) r.w.s.263 and 144B dated 23.03.2022, the appellant filed an appeal before the Hon'ble CIT(A), NFAC on 22.04.2022. The first appeal proceedings are presently pending, wherein the appellant has already filed detailed written submissions on 19.08.2025 in response to the notice under section 250 dated

Nikhil Rameshchand Ranka, Wardha vs. ACIT, Centrl Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2468/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Vardhaman L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 250

ld.CIT(A). 11. 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. 12. For the aforestated reason, we deem it fit to set-aside the impugned orders to the file

Nikhil Rameshchand Ranka, Wardha vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2467/PUN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Vardhaman L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 250

Air Con Systems(India) Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5325/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nITA No.5325/Del/2024\n(ASSESSMENT YEAR 2020-21)\n\nM/s Air Con Systems (India)\nPvt. Ltd.\nA-2/40F/F, Safdarjung\nDevelopment Area,\nGreen Park Market,\nSouth West Delhi-110016.\nPAN-AAACA9931D\n(Appellant)\n\nDCIT,\nCentral Circle-30,\nVs. New Delhi.\n(Respondent)\n\nAssessee by\nShri Mayank Patawarai, Adv.\nDepartment by\nShri Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR\nDate of Hearing\n15/07/2025\nDate of Pronouncem

Section 144Section 153ASection 271ASection 69A

assessee and accordingly addition of Rs.62,00,000/- was made u/s 69A of the Act in the hands of the assessee. In first appeal Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition, therefore, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking the following grounds: 1. On the facts and circumstances

Manoj Kumar Gangadharan, Bhopal vs. ITO (It and Tp) Bhopal, Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 671/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 253Section 270ASection 270A(9)(a)Section 274

vide letter issued vide DIN 22/1041672758(1) dated 26.03.2022.” 2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned penalty order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act on Page 4 of 22 Manoj Kumar Gangadharan ITA No. 670&671 /Ind/2024 - A.Ys.2017-18&2018-19 06.11.2023 (Form No.35 ... arbitrary manner. 2. That Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty by arbitrarily rejecting condonation of delay application in filing the first appeal of appellant and consequently dismissing the first appeal in an arbitrary manner. 3. That the assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete

Manoj Kumar Gangadharan, Bhopal vs. ITO (It and Tp) Bhopal, Bhopal

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 670/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 253Section 270ASection 270A(9)(a)Section 274

Birendra Singh Nirbhay, Sirsi Road Jaipur Rajasthan vs. ITO Ward 3(1) Jaipur, Ncrb Income Tax Department Statue Circle Jaipur Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 132(4)Section 69C

therefore, added u/s 68 to the total income of the assesee for the year under consideration treating it as unexplained cash credit. In first appeal, the Id. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO by observing as under:- 5.2 Following the decision in the cases discussed above ... expenditure u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration." In first appeal, the Id.CIT(A) reduced the addition from Rs.1,85,530/- to 1,23,680/- i.e. from 6% to 4% by observing as under

Nitu Khadariya, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Ncrb Building

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1360/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 69A

account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961 and the same is added to the total income of the assessee." In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee as the assessee has not submitted any argument in support of the grounds

Balaram Nama Gaikwad, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5127/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrybalaram Nama Gaikwad, Ito, Ward-3(1), Kalyan. 1 Matoshree, Sunita Colony, Gavali Nagar, Vijay Nagar, Vs. Kalyan (West), Thane. Pan: Aeapg 6669 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Shinkar, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pitamber Kumar, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 144Section 250Section 69Section 69A

account of ‘unexplained investment’ u/sec. 69 of the Act. 4. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said additions by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of affording various opportunities, eventually made no compliance and/or filed no submissions/documents. Therefore, Ld. Commissioner by considering the fact that the Assessee

ITO-19(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Narpatchand Devichandji Mehta HUF, Grant Road

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 4251/MUM/2025[2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraito, Ward-19(2)(4), Narpatchand Devichandji Mumbai. Mehta Huf, Shop No. 5, 21 R.K. Building No.2 Co-Op. Vs. Housing Society Ltd., 9Th Khetwadi, Lane Grant Road, Mumbai-400 004 Pan: Aaahm 0640 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi &For Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 250Section 68

unexplained income and added the same to the total income of the Assessee. 4. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner and in order to prove the genuineness, creditworthiness and identity of the loan creditors, furnished following documents: - (i) Copy

Runa Vishal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3792/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryruna Vishal Shah, Block Ito, Ward-22(3)(2), No.3, Veer Building, Mumbai. Tagore Road, Santacruz Vs. (W), Mumbai. Pan: Bdcps 8211 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Mehta, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pushkaraj Bhangepatil, Ld. Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 68Section 69C

account of ‘commission @ 30% on sale proceeds u/sec. 69C of the Act. 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, with the said additions, filed first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. Admittedly, the Assessee mentioned email address in Form 35 as vhmalde@hotmail.com, however, Ld. Commissioner issued notices to the Assessee for the appellate

Shri Pragnesh Lallubhai Patel, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward-4, Navsari

In the result, appeal of the assessee is unadmitted

ITA 940/SRT/2024[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Surat08 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Shri Pragnesh Lallubhai Patel, Ito Ward-4, At Butlav, Post Dabhalai, Room No. 203, Swapnalok Soc. Navsari,-396466. Vs. Nr. Kaliawadi Bridge, Navsari, Gujarat-396445. Pan No. Aodpp 0260 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rasesh Shah, CA

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 5Section 69

affidavit wherein it is stated, inter alia, that the assessee is an illiterate person who had entrusted the task of filing the first appeal to the father of a friend, one Shri Bavanbhai Fuljibhai Patel, who unfortunately expired on 23.05.2021. Consequently, the assessee remained under the bona fide belief that