“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

Jothi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

ITA 2569/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: This Tribunal.

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

regard to the additions / disallowances forming part of the search assessment order passed u/s.153A of the Act on merits, i.e. on merits before the first appeal, had filed submissions along with documentary evidence in support thereof in pleading for deleting the additions / disallowances on merits as well. 23. The Ld.CIT ... confirmed the addition of Rs.92,95,305/- made u/s.56(2)(viii)(c) of the Act at para 6.6.5 of the impugned order of the first appeal. 26. The assessee aggrieved with the said order of the Ld.CIT(A) had filed the present appeal before us, by raising grounds of appeal

Rajendra Nanaso Godase, Dombivali vs. ITO 3(2), Kalyan

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

ITA 8450/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, Ld. AR (Virtually present)For Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, SR DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

including SC and SHEC, to the tune of Rs.13,75,050/-. 4. The Assessee thus being aggrieved challenged the said penalty levied, by filing First Appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who issued a show cause notice dated 29.09.2025 to the Assessee. In response to which, the Assessee, vide letter dated

Riddhi Pratik Bhatt, Kandivali West, Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer Mum Ward 42(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 8441/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankar

For Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, SR DR

Section 250Section 54

Assessee is also directed to update the latest address, telephone number, and e-mail address in the online portal of the Revenue Department for First Appeal and/or in the record of the Ld. Commissioner and the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer as well, without any delay and without any default. 3 RIDDHI

Ramesh Kanhayalal Lodha, Godiji Building, Kika Street, Masjid Bunder Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(3)(6), Piramal Chambers Dr. Ss Rao Marg Parel Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed

ITA 8294/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Shivali Mhatre, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, SR DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

Ramesh Kanhayalal Lodha 2. In the instant case, on perusing Form No.35 we observe that there was no delay in filing First Appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. However, the Ld. Commissioner construed the delay of 8 days by considering the date of service as 19.03.2018 as against 28.03.2018 as mentioned

International Reinsurance and Insurance Consultancy and Broking Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 6(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the

ITA 7163/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

account of disallowances made qua club expenses and Annual Information Return (AIR) mismatch, respectively. The Assessee being aggrieved and by filing first appeal challenged the said additions before the Ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order though deleted the addition of Rs.23,503/- made on account of disallowance of club expenses

Shri Abdul Wahab Wajidali Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO-31(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 6793/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 144Section 234Section 254(1)Section 69A

assessee has engaged Shri Kiran B. Mehta, CA who died in covid-19 pandemic. On perusal of the record, we find that assessee filed first appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 15.01.2020. The ld. CIT(A) issued various show 2 Shri Abdul WahabWajidali Khan cause notice in January

N N M Securities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre

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

ITA 1506/MUM/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2013-14 Nnm Securities Private Assessing Officer, Limited, 1111, Stock Mumbai, Maharashtra – Vs. Exchange Tower, Dalal 400020. Street, Maharashtra - 400023. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacn 8070 G Present For: Assessee By : Shri Hansaraj Sanghavi Revenue By : Shri.Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.A.R) Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.03.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 02.01.2025, 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. 2013-14. 2. In This Case, The Assessee Had Declared Its Income At Rs.12,41,210/- By Filing Its Return Of Income On Dated 28.09.2013 Which Was Processed & Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, On 17.02.2016. Thereafter The Following Information Was Received By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri Hansaraj SanghaviFor Respondent: Shri.Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (SR.A.R)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B(1)(xi)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Hitendra Commercial Private Limited. 6. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the aforesaid addition and the reopening proceeding before the Ld. Commissioner by filing first appeal and during the appellate proceedings before the Ld. Commissioner filed various written submissions, who in order to verify the submissions made by the Assessee

Paschimi Rudrapur F S S Limited, Danpur vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Rudrapur

In the result, the Appeal of the Appellant is allowed for statistical

ITA 259/DDN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun06 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Sanjay Awasthipaschmi Rudrapur F S S Vs Income Tax Officer, Limited. Village Danapur, P.O. Ward 2(1)(4) Danapur, Rudrapur, Udham Rudrapur, Mandiparisar, Singh Nagar, Rudrapur, Bagwada, Kichha Road, Uttarakhand Rudrapur, Uttarakhand Pan: Aabap2900N Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Parvesh Sharma, Adv Revenue By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06/02/2026

/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 07/10/2025 for the Assessment Year 2019-20, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the First Appeal by confirming the order of penalty respectively. 2. It is found that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the quantum Appeal remanded the issue

Kamlesh Koushal, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer, 1(2), Indore

In the result, the impugned order is set aside as & by way of

ITA 708/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

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

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274Section 69A

herein after 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 ... erstwhile counsel who had not informed Page 14 of 18 Kamlesh Koushal ITA No. 708/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2017-18 the assessee about the disposal of the first appeal consequently the delay occurred. The delay also occurred due to the fact that the assessee was collecting the relevant documents which were required for preparing

Abde Ali, Indore vs. ITO, Burhanpur

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

ITA 648/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

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

Section 147Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 69A

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 1st “Impugned Order” has dismissed the appeal of the Assessee ... 648/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2017-18 of the impugned assessment order. In so far as the “impugned order is concerned it was submitted that on account delay the first appeal was not admitted. There was a delay of 543 days before the Ld. CIT (A). The “impugned order” even otherwise was an ex-parte

Abde Ali, Indore vs. ITO Burhanpur, Burhanpur

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

ITA 647/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

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

Section 147Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 69A

Parvati Sales Corporation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 485/MUM/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah a/wFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe (Sr. DR.)

Section 143(1)Section 250

dated 21.11.2025 dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in limine and/or for want of limitation and/or for the delay of 1275 days in filing First Appeal, challenging the Assessment Order/Intimation dated 03.11.2021 u/s 143(1) of the Act. 3. Thus, the Assessee being aggrieved has preferred instant appeal ... observed that the Assessee in Form No.35 (Column No.14) specifically responded ‘No’ to the question “whether there was any delay in filing of First Appeal”. Further, the Assessee admittedly failed to file any specific/separate application for condonation of delay. It is also admitted fact that the Assessee in support

Iphonline Limited (Now As Asapp Info Global Servies Pvt Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-6(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5946/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 36(2)(i)

account of prepaid expenses and provisions of expenses. 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said additions/disallowances before the Ld. Commissioner by filing First Appeal, who dismissed the same, affirming the aforesaid additions/disallowances. Thus the Assessee, being aggrieved, has preferred instant Appeal. 4. For the sake of brevity, we deem

Parvathaneni Praveen, Khammam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Khammam

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1271/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiao.4Tt.A /Ita.No.1271/Hyd/2025

For Appellant: Sri KA Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

raising a demand of Rs.56,28,703/-was received on 23.12.2022. Immediately I contacted a chartered accountant at Hyderabad and he got the first appeal filed on 20.01.2023 through a tax consultant. Subsequently due to my financial difficulties I moved away from my native place Khammam, to a small private ... praveeneni@gmail.com" and dismissed the appeal in the absence of any proper reply. Immediately my chartered accountant at Hyderabad approached the consultant who filed the first appeal and got the appeal filed before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 06.08.2025 causing a delay of 159 days. ITA.No.1271/Hyd./2025

Late Abdullah Abdulmajeed, Rep. by L/H, Pudukkottai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Pudukkottai

ITA 3294/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH: CHENNΑΙ सुश्री पद्मावती एस, लेखा सदस्य

Deepak Jayantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6766/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Punamiya (VirtuallyFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri (Sr

Section 147Section 250Section 50CSection 69

Assessee’s attention was required towards her mother treatment, which resulted into delay of approximately two months in filing of 3 Deepak Jayantilal Jain First Appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. The reasons stated by the Assessee in our considered view, appears to be genuine but still the Ld. Commissioner adopted

Anil Kumar Singh, Mathura vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Mathura

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 586/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Anil Kumar Singh Vs. Ito, Ward –1(3)(1) Pushpanjali Dwarika Near Bhagwan Nagar N.H.-2, Mathura Pan : Axjps7413B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order

Section 144Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

wherein ld CIT has dismissed assessee’s appeal upon rejection of assessee’s request for condonation of delay in filing first appeal. 2. At the very outset, it is noticed that the first appeal was filed on 17.10.20 against the assessment order dated 05.12.19 passed u/s. 144 read with section ... hold that the delay has wrongly been refused to be condoned by learned CIT(A). We, accordingly condone the said delay in filing the first appeal before the first appellate authority. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.10.25 is set aside. The delay

Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Guna vs. Income Tax Officer, Guna

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

ITA 348/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

appellant at Rs. 8,55,48,650/- vide Assessment Order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 30.03.2016. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before ld. CIT(A), who partly allowedassessee’s first appeal. 6. Assessee has preferred this second appeal on the ground thatlearned CIT(A) has erred

Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Guna vs. Income Tax Officer, Guna

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

ITA 347/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

Shri Manoj Anand, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji

ITA 9/PAN/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Shrinivas Nayak & Mr Narcinva Lotlikar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Naveen Kumar [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

sake of brevity & convenience are heard together for being disposed of by this common & consolidated order. Accordingly, for the purpose of common adjudication, the first appeal ITA No. 008/PAN/2022 is taken as lead case wherefore the rival parties made common submissions & arguments. In result our adjudication laid in succeeding paragraphs