“ first appeal ”

Sanjay Sawhney v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax

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.

116 Taxmann.com 701 · 2020 · High Court

Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

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.

156 ITR 54 · 1985 · High Court

Kiran Singh & Ors. v. Chaman Paswan & Ors.

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.

1 SCR 117 · 1955 · Supreme Court

CIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar

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.

74 ITR 41 · 1969 · Supreme Court

Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

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.

408 ITR 500 · 2018 · High Court

CIT v. Geo Industries and Insecticides (1) Pvt Ltd.

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.

96 TTJ 211 · 2005 · ITAT

Ramco Cements Ltd. v. DCIT

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.

373 ITR 146 · 2015 · High Court

ITA 320/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

An assessee can make a claim of deduction for the first time before the appellate authorities.

Judgments citing first appeal

Usha Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

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

For Appellant: Mrs. Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 14ySection 234ASection 234B

claimed by the assessee and thus computed the long term capital gain of Rs.7,19,320/- in the hands of the assessee. In first appeal, the ld CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO as the assessee failed to any submission / explanation before him in spite of providing three

Sahyadri Farmers Producer Company Limited, Nashik vs. ACIT Circle - 1, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 951/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.951/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sahyadri Farmers Producer Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Nashik. Company Limited, Survey No.1102/8, Behind Police Head Quarter, Adgaon, Nashik- 422003. Pan : Aapcs1516D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-6, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “ (All The Grounds Are Without Prejudice To Each Other) 1. The Learned Addl/Jcit (A)-6 Delhi Erred In Law & Fact In Upholding Disallowance U/S Boib(114) Amounting To Rs.8,73,57,770 Made By Learned Dcit, Cpc (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 143(1)Section 801BSection 80I

said deduction was disallowed by the CPC since audit report in Form 10CCB was furnished belatedly. Even on first appeal, Ld. CIT(A) uphold the action of the CPC and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 3 4. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal

Amaravara Indigital Media Services Private Limited, Hyderabab vs. DCIT., Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 487/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik,CIT-DR

Section 144

serious management deadlock between two shareholder groups (Hyderabad group and Mumbai group), which hampered participation before the Ld. AO and timely filing of the first appeal. To demonstrate contemporaneous dispute, our attention was invited to the email dated 17.04.2018 (page no.14 of the paper book) wherein the Hyderabad group intimated

Sumati G Gupta Securities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 13(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4690/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13 Sumati G Gupta Securities Income Tax Officer- Private Limited 13(2)(1) C/O – 2Nd Floor, Geeta Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Sion Circle, Sion East, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai- 400022 Pan: Aaacb3475H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Margav Shukla & Shri Shubham Shah, Ld. Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sushil Bhagwat Shendge,Ld. Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.01.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2012- 13. 2. At The Outset It Is Observed That There Is Delay 114 Days In Filing Of Instant Appeal. The Assessee By Filling Application For Condonation Of Delay, Along With Duly Sworn Affidavit, Has Demonstrated The Reason For The Delay To Effect That The Assessee Company Was Dissolved & Struck Off From The Register Of The Companies With Effect From 31.08.2016. However Subsequently The 2 Sumati G Gupta Securities Private Limited Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act By Issuing A Notice Dated 28.03.2019 U/S 148 Of The Act, Which Resulted Into Passing The Assessment Order Dated 18.12.2019 U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act & Making The Addition Of Rs.3,87,673 U/S 68 Of The Act Being Undisclosed Income.

For Appellant: Shri Margav Shukla &For Respondent: Shri Sushil Bhagwat Shendge,Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 68

being undisclosed income. 3. The Assessee challenged the said addition along with reopening of the proceeding as well as Assessment Order, by filing the first appeal before Ld. Commissioner. Though, the assessee has mentioned to E-mail ID as G_L_Gupta@hotmail.com , however, the Id. Commissioner sent the notices at the email

Pellucid Securities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 7(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4372/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Pellucid Securities Commissioner Of Income Private Limited, Tax Appeal, (Nfac) 301, Turf View, National Faceless Appeal 63, Dadarkar Compound, Centre – Ito Ward 7(3)(1), Vs. Tardeo, Ab-126J, Mumbai Aayakar Bhawan, Maharashtra - 400034 Churchgate, Pan: Aafcp1405L Mumbai Maharashtra – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Bhagat, Ld. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.10.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2014-15. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 183 Days In Filing This Appeal, As Pointed Out By The Registry, On Which The Assessee Has Claimed That Due To Non-Receipt Of The Impugned Order On Its Email Registered As Well As In Physical Form, The Delay Has Been Occurred, Which Was Neither Intentional Nor Malafide But Because Of The Aforesaid Reason.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Bhagat, Ld. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69Section 69C

Rs.76,614/- being commission paid u/s 69C of the Act. 6. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said additions by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of affording four opportunities eventually made no compliance and/or filed no evidence/documents to substantiate its claim. Therefore, in the constrained circumstances

Bhanu Pratap Shahi, Ranchi vs. ACIT Circle-1, Ranchi Jharkhand

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 154/RAN/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Oct 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaybhanu Pratap Shahi, A.C.I.T., C/O-Kapil Goel, Adv., F-26/124, Circle-1, Vs. Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi-110085. Ranchi. Pan No. Bmyps 9139 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

ITA 200/RAN/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

jurisdictionally flawed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction u/s 143(2) of 1961 Act and therefore first appeal order dated 07.03.2024 is also invalid. Both order may please be quashed and set aside. 1.1 Impugned Assessment order dated 29.12.2011 passed u/s 143(3) is invalid being based on invalid ... notice issued u/s 143(2) of 1961 Act dated 30.09.2020 which is in violation of mandatory applicable CBDT instructions on the subject and therefore first appeal order dated 07.03.2024 is also invalid. Both order may please be quashed and set aside. 1.2 Impugned Assessment order dated 29.12.2011 passed

Bhanu Pratap Shahi, Ranchi vs. DCIT Circle 1 Ranchi, Ranchi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 199/RAN/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bhanu Pratap Shahi, Ranchi vs. DCIT Circle-1 Ranchi, Ranchi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 198/RAN/2023[200607]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Oct 2025

Bhanu Pratap Shahi, Ranchi vs. DCIT Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 103/ASR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Amarjot Singh Village Babehali Distt Gurdaspur, Gurdaspur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Gurdaspur G T Road Gurdaspur, Gurdaspur

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

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

separate defaults, whereby penalty of Rs. 20,000/- has been imposed @ Rs. 10,000/-, for each default. 33. The matter in first appeal has been dismissed by the ld. first appellate authority u/s 249(2) of the Act, refusing to condone the delay in filing the first appeal

Amarjot Singh Village Babehali Distt Gurdaspur, Gurdaspur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Gurdaspur, Gurdaspur

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

ITA 102/ASR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

Amarjot Singh Village Babehali Distt Gurdaspur, Gurdaspur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Gurdaspur, Gurdaspur

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

ITA 101/ASR/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

Amarjot Singh, Village Babehali Distt Gurdaspur vs. Income Tax Officer Gurdaspur, Gurdaspur

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

ITA 598/ASR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

Amarjot Singh, Gurdaspur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Gurdaspur, Gurdaspur

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

ITA 597/ASR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

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