“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

Devi Dutt Agarwal, Sitapur vs. Income Tax Officer Sitapur New, Sitapur

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

ITA 103/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Govind Krishna, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Prajesh Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 69Section 69A

functioning of the Income tax portal, they could not make proper compliance either at the stage of assessment or at the stage of first appeal. However, the assessee had all the evidences in his possession to demonstrate that the deposits in the stated bank account were in fact the turnover

DCIT, Swargate Pune vs. Honeywell Automation India Limited, Pune

ITA 2180/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt Astha Chandra & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Siddhesh Chougule[‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Gaurav Singh [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 10A(7)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee contested the imposed penalty in an appeal u/s 246A of the Act which was allowed on merits. Aggrieved by the relief granted in first appeal, the Revenue has set this case to reverse the relief on the following grounds; 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the cases

Shri Guptnath Bal Shikshan Samiti Machalpur, Machalpur vs. ITO Ward Rajgarh, Rajgarh

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in

ITA 313/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 10Section 131Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 80A

Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 22.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 od’1/O RDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 03.01.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-AddI/JCIT(A)-1, Mumbai [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order ... assessed the net profit of educational activity at Rs. 16,20,485/- as total income of assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first appeal and made submission which is re-produced by CIT(A) on Page No. 2-6 of impugned order. However, the CIT(A) passed a very

Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Limited, Bhopal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax ACIT-2(1), Bhopal

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

ITA 172/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimadhya Pradesh Road Acit-2(1), बनाम/ Development Corporation Bhopal Vs. Ltd, 45-A, Arera Hiils, Bhopal (Pan:Aagcm5306C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vikas Guru, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 24.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 80I

corporation availed the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. 2.3 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

Deepak Parekh, Usa vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax CPC, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 126/IND/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(1)

Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 25.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 smez1/O RDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 05.12.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Addl./JCIT(A)-3, Mumbai [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of intimation ... 26AS of assessee and denied the credit of TDS of Rs. 14,59,120/- appearing in Form No. 26AS of assessee’ wife. During first-appeal, the CIT(A) has also upheld AO’s order. Therefore, the assessee is contending for giving credit of TDS of Rs. 14,59,120/- appearing

Madhya Pradesh Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Bhopal vs. ITO 2(3), Bhopal

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

ITA 930/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimadhya Pradesh Urja Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Vikas Nigam Ltd, 2(3), Vs. 1 Urja Bhawan, Bhopal Link Road Nos.2, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal (Pan:Aabcm1097M) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Shashank Sharma, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 24.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 253

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 ... that date of the “impugned assessment order" is 23.02.2016 and that the same was received by the assessee on 10.03.2016. That on 05.04.2016 the first appeal was filed manually which appeal was well within the statutory period of 30 days under the Act. Thereafter vide CBDT Circular No.20/2016 dated

Sanjana Clothings Private Limited, Indore vs. Aid, CPC Bengaluru, Bengaluru

ITA 841/IND/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

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

Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(1)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

dated 24.08.2022 which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned intimation order". 2.9 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned intimation order” prefers 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 ... grounds and reasons stated therein. The core grounds and reasons for the dismissal of the first appeal of the assessee was as under:- "6. Observations, Findings and Decisions I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submission of the appellant I have perused the order dated

Hare Ram Mandir Trust, Bhopal vs. ITO -Exemption, Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 770/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

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

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253

filed on 01.04.2022 which is beyond the period of 4 years. 2.6 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned rectification order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the 1st appeal of the assessee ... ground and reason stated therein. The core ground and reason for the dismissal of the first appeal was as under:- “5.4. In view of the facts narrated by the AO, I am of the considered view that the return of income was processed by the AO based

Hare Ram Mandir Trust, Bhopal vs. ITO-Exemption, Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 769/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

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

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253

Radheshyam, Village Sevda, Ashta vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 666/IND/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiradheyshyam, Cit (A), बनाम/ Village Sevda, Nfac Vs. Ashta, Delhi Madhya Pradesh (Pan:Cezpr5392R) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 251Section 253Section 68

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

New Shri Krishna Plaza, Sikar vs. ITO WD 2, Sikar

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

ITA 968/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

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

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 69A

hands of the assessee (1)Rs.4,90,925/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act. (2)Rs.15,95,500/- u/s 69A of the Act In first appeal, the Id.CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO as the assessee failed to furnish any reply/ documentary evidence in respect

Smt. Suman Choudhary, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 687/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68

preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A). At this juncture, kind attention of your honours is invited to the fact that ld. CIT(A) completed first appeal proceedings without properly considering the matter on legal front. Thus it is humbly requested that appeal may please be decided on legality

Lalit Kumar Jain, Alwar vs. ITO Ward, 1(2), Alwar

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

ITA 1126/JPR/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

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

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

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69

Income Tax Act for the F.Y. 2017-18 relevant to assessment year 2018-19 and penalty proceedings under section 271AAC is being initiated.’’ In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO as the assessee failed to furnish any reply/ documentary evidence in respect

Kailash Chand Meena, Alwar vs. ITO Ward2(3), Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 101/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

made addition of Rs.10,60,000/- u/s 69A and also charged tax u/s 115BBE without issuing any show cause notice. In first appeal the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the order of the ld. AO without going in to consideration material available on record. Hence this appeal. SUBMISSIONS

Hira, Dausa vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dausa

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

ITA 34/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ghanshyam Meena, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234Section 69A

HIRA VS ITO, WARD -DAUSA assessee. The Tots Income assessed is taxed u/s 115 BBE of the Act at the rate of 60%’’ In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order as assessee failed to provide any material contrary to the findings

Jaro Institute of Technology Management and Research Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5062/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am Jaro Institute Of Technology Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Management & Research Ltd. Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai 11Th Floor, Vikas Centre, Dr. C. G. Vs. Road, Chembur, Fci, S.O. Mumbai – 400074. Pan/Gir No. Aaccj2107Q (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jay Thakkar Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1.0 On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Condoning The Delay In Filing The 1" Appeal Of 118 Days & Ought To Have Considered The Bonafide Reasons & Compelling Circumstances, Supported With Affidavit, That Had Precluded The Appellant To File The 1" Appeal In Time, 2.0 On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Disallowance Of Sales & Promotion Expenses Of Rs.2,73,78,889, Jaro Institution Of Technology Management & Research Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Jay ThakkarFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, SR DR

Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40

Qualification and Experience of other employees specified by the assessee. 7. The ld. CIT(A) also held that the assessee had preferred the first Appeal as an afterthought without any justifiable reason. The ld. AR prayed that these issues be remanded back to the ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating ... file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the issue on the merits of the case by duly condoning the delay in filing the first appeal by adhering to the principles of natural justice and in the interest of justice dispensation. We also note that various High Courts

Ramavtar Investment & Trading Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4866/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: The Ld. Commissioner, However, With A Delay Of Approximately 725 Days. The Assessee, Before The Ld. Commissioner By Filing Form No.35 Mentioned The Following Reason For Occurring Of Delay In Filing Of Appeal Before The Ld. Commissioner, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Ramchandran, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shingate, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147Section 246ASection 249(3)Section 250Section 69C

Rs.46,67,185/- u/s 69C of the Act, being unexplained expenditure. 4. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said assessment order by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, with a delay of approximately 725 days. The Assessee, before the Ld. Commissioner by filing form No.35 mentioned the following ... being advised by subsequent senior counsel, decided to withdraw the said revision application and consequently filed the appropriate proceedings in the form of first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. 7. Therefore, the Ld. A.R. prayed that the leniency may be given and the delay may be condoned and appropriate direction

Jyoti Jatin Chauhan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(4)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4838/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryms. Jyoti Jatin Chauhan, Ito, Ward-41(4)(2), Flat No.303, New Radheshyam Mumbai. Niwas Road No.17, Jawahar Vs. Nagar, Goregaon (West), Mumbai-400062 Pan: Ajdpc 9522 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Thacker, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G.J. Ninawe, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Assessee, as unexplained cash credit and consequently made the addition of such amount. 9. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, failed to get any relief, as the Ld. Commissioner on the same footing, as of the AO, affirmed

Baban Chindhu Harane, Tal - Sahapur vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Kalyan

ITA 4834/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19 Mr. Baban Chindhu Harane Ito Ward 2(2), Kalyan At- Changyacha Pada, Kalyan Kharade Bhiwandi Vs. Maharashtra - 421301 Tal-Sahapur Maharashtra - 420601 Pan: Aczph1742D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Shah, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.05.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (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. 2018-19. 2. In The Instant Case, As Per The Information Available With The Department In Insight Portal The Assessee Had Purchased A Property On A Consideration Of Rs.4,00,000/- As Against The Stamp Duty Valuation At Rs.10,64,000/- & Therefore The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Recording Reasons For Reopening & Issuing Notice Dated 11.02.2023 U/S 148 Of The Act, Which Resulted Into Making The Addition Of Rs.6,64,000/- Being Difference Between The Stamp

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 148Section 2Section 250Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

consideration shown by the Assessee u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act. 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, could not get any relief and therefore the Assessee being aggrieved has preferred the instant appeal. 4. Heard the parties

Chandrakant Jethmal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 41(4)(1), Mumbai, Bkc, Bandra (East)

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 4611/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrychandrakant Jethmal Jain, Ito, Ward-41(1), Flat No.E-2004, Anmol Excel Mumbai Estate, S.V. Road, Opp. Patel Vs. Petrol Pump, Goregaon (West), Mumbai-400062 Pan: Aacpj 0335 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Patni, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri G.J. Ninawe, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

situated at Royal Samrat, S.V. Road, Goregaon, Mumbai-400062 3. The Assessee, though being aggrieved, challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, of no avail. 4. Admittedly, the Assessee had purchased the property under consideration through agreement to sell dated 14/11/2011 on a total